UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


SCHOOL  OF  LAW 
LIBRARY 


The 

Office  and  Duties  of  Coroners 
in  Pennsylvania 


An  Essay 


Awarded  the  Peter  Stephen  Duponceau  Prize,  by  the  Law  Academy 
of  Philadelphia 


This  volume  can  be  bound  in  buckram  by 
Geo.  T.  Bisel  &  Co.,  724  Sansom  St.,  Phila- 
delphia, for  fifty  cents. 


PHILADELPHIA 

INTERNATIONAL  PRINTING    COMPANY 
1*11 


The 

Office  and  Duties  of  Coroners 
in  Pennsylvania 


An  Essay 


Awarded  the  Peter  Stephen  Duponceau  Prize,  by  the  Law  Academy 
of  Philadelphia 


by 
Graham  Cox  Woodward 

of  the  Philadelphia  Bar 


PHILADELPHIA 

INTERNATIONAL  PRINTING    COMPANY 
1911 


T 


Copyright  1911, 

by 
Graham  Cox  Woodward 


PREFACE. 

The  following  essay  was  written  for  the  Peter  Stephen 
Duponceau  prize  of  the  Law  Academy  of  Philadelphia,  and 
was  awarded  the  prize  in  1908.  The  delays  which  have 
accompanied  its  publication  can  best  be  atoned  for  by  saying 
that  it  has  been  brought  down  to  date  by  the  author,  who 
submits  it  as  presenting  the  law  of  coroners  as  it  stands  to- 
day in  Pennsylvania.  The  author  desires  to  express  his 
thanks  to  Mr.  Justice  Potter  and  to  Judges  Lamorelle  and 
McPherson,  the  committee  of  the  Faculty  of  the  Law 
Academy,  for  their  painstaking  care  in  examining  the  essay 
prior  to  awarding  the  prize  above  mentioned  and  for  the 
helpful  suggestions  made  by  them  in  regard  thereto.  The 
index  has  been  built  around  the  West  Publishing  Com- 
pany's analysis  of  the  subject  as  it  appears  in  the  American 
Digest  with  as  few  additions  as  possible,  and  for  the  kind 
permission  to  use  this  analysis  the  author  takes  pleasure  in 
thus  publicly  expressing  his  thanks  to  the  West  Publishing 
Company.  The  author  also  desires  to  express  his  apprecia- 
tion of  the  universal  kindness  and  helpfulness  of  Luther  E. 
Hewitt,  Esq.,  Librarian  of  the  Law  Association  Library. 

G.  C.  W. 
Philadelphia,  September  i,  1911. 


(iii) 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

INTRODUCTION 
Page  3 

PARTI 

CHAPTER  I 

THE  ORIGIN  AND  GROWTH  OF  THE  OFFICE  OF  CORONER  IN 
ENGLAND,  TOGETHER  WITH  HIS  POWERS  AND  DUTIES. 

Page  7 

§    i.  Age  of  the  office  of  coroner. 

§    2.  Office  adapted  to  Norman  notions. 

§    3.  Earliest  traces  of  the  history  of  the  office. 

§    4.  Evidence  of  the  office  prior  to  1194. 

§    5.  Charters  of  Colchester  and  Norwich. 

§    6.  Other  early  traces. 

§    7.  Offices  of  similar  character  in  early  times. 

§    8.  Coroner's  powers  to  hold  pleas  of  the  Crown. 

§    9.  The  laws  of  Henry  I  and  earlier  laws. 

§  10.  Difficulties  with  the  theory  that  the  office  was  created 

in  1194. 

§  II.  Another  theory  of  the  rise  of  the  office. 

§  12.  History  of  the  office  during  the  reign  of  King  John. 

§  13.  Office  held  by  knights. 

CHAPTER  II 

DEFINITION  AND  DIFFERENT  KINDS  OF  CORONERS  IN  ENGLAND 
— THEIR  JURISDICTION 

Page  20 

§  14.     Definition. 

§  15.     Different  kinds  of  coroners. 
§  16.     Coroner's  virtute  officio. 
§  17.     Coroner's  virtute  cartae  s'vue  commissionis. 
§  1 8.    Coroner  of  the  verge. 

(v) 


vi  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

§  19.  Coroner  of  the  admiralty. 

§  20.  Coroners  of  franchises. 

§  21.  The  case  of  London. 

§  22.  Limitations  on  the  powers  of   coroners    virtute    cartae 

sive  commissionis. 

§  23.  Coroner's  virtute  electionis. 

§  24.  Jurisdiction. 

CHAPTER  III 
THE  STATUTE  DE  OFFICIO  CORONATORIS 

Page  37 

§  25.     Introductory. 
§  26.     The  text  of  the  statute. 

§  27.     The  statute  compared  with  Bracton's  Treatise. 
§  28.     The  statute  of  I  Richard  II  as  modifying  the  rigors  of 
the  statute  de  officio  coronatoris. 

CHAPTER  IV 

THE  ELECTION  AND  QUALIFICATION  OF  CORONERS 
Page  44 

§  29.     Elections  of  coroners,  the  writ  de  coronatore  elegendo. 

§  30.     Qualifications. 

§  31.     Removal  from  office,  the  writ  de  coronatore  exonerando. 

CHAPTER  V 
THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  CORONERS 

Page  54 

§  32.  Introductory. 

§  33.  Seven  duties  of  the  coroner. 

§  34.  Inquests  of  death. 

§  35.  Inquests  other  than  death. 

§  36.  Power  to  receive  appeals. 

§  37.  Outlawry. 

§  38.  Sanctuary  and  abjurations. 

§  39.  Penalties  for  neglect  and  misfeasance. 

§  40.  The  coroner's  court. 

§41.  Deputies  and  assistants. 

§42.  Subsidiary  powers. 

§  43.  Fees. 

§  44.  Privileges. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  vii 

CHAPTER  VI 
CORONER'S  INQUESTS  IN  ENGLAND 

Page  89 

§  45.  Introductory. 

§  46.  Cases  where  inquiry  should  be  held. 

§  47.  Time  and  place  of  holding  the  inquest. 

§  48.  Scope  of  the  inquiry. 

§  49.  What  circumstances  rendered  necessary  a  second  inquest. 

§  50.  How  inquest  was  taken. 

§51-   Jury- 

§  52.  Evidence  and  witnesses. 

§  53.  Inquiry  to  be  impartial. 

§  54.  Publicity  and  power  to  exclude. 

§  55.  Deodands. 

§  56.  Englishery. 

CHAPTER  VII 

THE  EFFECT  OF  THE  INQUEST  AND  RETURN 
Page  123 

§  57.     Contents,  form  and  requirements. 

§58.     Credit. 

§  59.     Effect  of  inquisition  as  evidence. 

CHAPTER  VIII 
THE  MINISTERIAL  DUTIES  OF  CORONERS 

Page  139 
§  60.     Ministerial  duties  of  coroners. 

PART  II 

THE  OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  CORONERS  IN  PENNSYLVANIA — 
VIEW  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  THEIR  ORIGIN. 

CHAPTER  I 

THE  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  CORONERS  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

Page  145 
§61.     Early  history  of  the  office  in  Pennsylvania. 


viii  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  II 

ELECTION  AND  QUALIFICATIONS  OF  CORONERS  AND  VACANCIES 
IN  THE  OFFICE 

Page  149 
§  62:    Election. 
§63.     Oath. 
§  64.     Bond. 
§  65.     Vacancies. 

CHAPTER  III 

THE  POWERS  AND  DUTIES  OF  CORONERS 
Page  156 

§  66.  Duties  in  Colonial  times. 

§  67.  Differences  in  the  office  in  Pennsylvania — definition. 

§  68.  Judicial  duties. 

§  69.  Subsidiary  powers. 

§  70.  Jurisdiction. 

§  71.  Preliminary  view  and  investigation. 

§  72.  Registration  of  death  and  care  of  body. 

§  73.  Penalties  for  negligence  and  misfeasance. 

CHAPTER  IV 

CORONER'S  DEPUTIES 

Page  i 66 

§  74.    Justice  of  the  peace  acting  as  coroner. 
§  75.     Meliiis  inquirendum  in  America. 
§  76.     Deputy  coroners. 

CHAPTER  V 
THE  CORONER'S  JURY 

Page  176 
§  77.     Coroner's  jury. 

CHAPTER  VI 

THE  CORONER'S  INQUEST — WHEN  HELD 
Page  1 80 

§  78.     Object  of  the  inquest. 

§  79.     Preliminary  view  and  investigation. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

§  80.  When  the  inquest  should  be  held. 

§  81.  Specific  cases  discussed — definition  of  "violence." 

§  82.  The  Act  of  1866  relating  to  Luzerne  County. 

§  83.  Inquests  where  death  is  suspicious. 

§  84.  Inquests  where  cause  of  death  is  known. 

§  85.  Suicide. 

§  86.  Accidental  death. 

§  87.  Inquests  at  the  cost  of  the  parties  requesting  them. 

CHAPTER  VII 

THE  CORONER'S  INQUEST — How  HELD 
Page  208 

§  88.  Notification  of  the  coroner. 

§  89.  Autopsy. 

§  90.  Publicity. 

§91.  View. 

§  92".  Right  to  counsel. 

§  923.  Arrangement  and  conduct  of  the  court. 

CHAPTER  VIII 

EFFECT  AND  RETURN  OF  THE  INQUISITION 
Page  221 

§  93.  Inquisition,  its  contents  and  requisites. 

§  94.  Approval  and  amendment. 

§  95.  Effect  of  inquisition. 

§  96.  Depositions  before  the  coroner  as  evidence. 

CHAPTER  IX 
THE  CORONER'S  DUTIES  IN  REGARD  TO  MINES 

Page  226 
§  97.     Coroner's  duties  in  regard  to  mines. 

CHAPTER  X 
THE  CORONER'S  DUTIES  IN  REGARD  TO  MORGUES 

Page  229 
§  98.     Coroner's  duties  in  regard  to  morgues. 


x  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  XI 
MINISTERIAL  DUTIES  OF  CORONERS 

Page  231 
§  983.  Ministerial  duties  of  coroners. 

CHAPTER  XII 

ACCOUNTS  AND  COMPENSATION  OF  CORONERS 
Page  234 

§    99.  Fees  of  coroners. 

§  ico.  Early  laws  on  the  subject. 

§  101.  Approval  of  inquest  requisite  to  payment  of  fees. 

§  102.  Analysis  of  present  fees. 

§  103.  Ancillary  expenses. 

§  104.  Fees  of  deputy  coroners. 

§  105.  Duplication  of  fees. 

§  106.  Coroner's  salaries. 

CONCLUSION 
Page  249 

APPENDICES 
Page  252 


THE   OFFICE   AND  DUTIES   OF   CORONERS   IN 

PENNSYLVANIA. 


INTRODUCTION. 

When  Cain  killed  Abel  (a)  a  situation  arose  which  was 
new  to  the  world.  Disputes  between  man  and  man  were 
infrequent  and  the  tribunal  before  which  they  were  tried 
was  never  reversed  by  a  higher  court.  The  Almighty  was 
nearer  men  in  those  days;  He  took  part  in  their  affairs  in 
a  more  personal  way  than  He  has  found  necessary  since 
men  have  learned  to  judge  each  other.  It  would  appear 
that  no  coronor's  inquest  was  held  over  the  body  of  Abel 
(a)  nor  were  the  first  finders  attached  according  to  the  laws 
of  England  (&). 

In  almost  every  civilized  nation  government  officials 
investigate  sudden  deaths  which  are  or  seem  unnatural  or 
which  are  suspicious  (c).  The  need  of  so  doing  is  obvious 
for  the  guilty  might  escape  or  the  innocent  be  suspected  of 
the  most  heinous  of  all  crimes  were  it  not  for  swift  and 
certain  investigation  when  the  body  of  one  suddenly  dead 
is  found  (d). 

Among  the  Chinese  an  officer  of  the  government  in- 
quires into  all  cases  of  sudden  death.  In  France  (e)  Ger- 

(o)  Genesis,  Chapter  IV,  verse  8. 

(&)  Select  Coroners  Rolls'  Selden  Society,  Vol.  9,  pages   i,  2,  3, 
4,  et  seq.,  and  see  Bracton,  I2ib. 

(c)  See  6  Am.   Law   Reg.    (O.   S.)    385,    n   Am.   Law   Reg.   488 
Umf.  Lex.  Cor.  10. 

(d)  See  Post.  Section  34, 

(e)  See     Code    d'Instruction     Criminell    Arts.    44-281,     Hubert's 
Manuel  des  Lois,  133,  6  Am.  Law  Reg.  (O.  S.)  385.     "In  France  the 
Procureur,    the    prosecuting   officer,    proceeds    to    the   place    where    a 
crime  has  been  committed  and  makes  the  investigation.    He  has  power 
to  summon   witnesses   and  take   their  testimony  in  writing,   which   is 
read  to  and  signed  by  them,  to  prevent  egress  from  the  house  or  de- 
parture from  the  neighborhood,  when  he  deems  it  necessary;  and  to 
seize  all  papers  and  other  articles  supposed  to  be  connected  with  the 
crime.     He  is  authorized  to  take  with  him  to  the  place  of  the  crime 
one  or  two  persons  by  their  art  or  profession  capable  of  appreciating 
the  nature  and  circumstances  of  the  crime ;   and  where   a  violent  or 
suspicious  death  is  the  subject  of  inquiry,  he  is  aided  by  one  or  two 

(3) 


4      OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

many  (/)  Austria  (0)  Scotland  (h)  and  even  in  Russia 
($)  a  medical  examiner  employed  by  the  government  ex- 
amines the  bodies  of  all  who  may  come  to  their  end  by 
unnatural  means.  He  reports  all  cases  where  crime  is  sus- 
pected to  the  prosecuting  authorities  for  further  investi- 
gation (&).  There  is,  however,  no  trace  of  the  officer  or 
functions  of  the  coroner  among  the  early  Hindu  laws  (/). 
It  may  therefore  be  that  this  institution  is  one  belonging  to 
a  more  advanced  state  of  civilization  (m). 

In  England  the  practice  of  investigating  such  cases  is 
an  old  one  (n).  The  duties  arising  upon  the  sudden  death 
of  an  individual  devolve  upon  the  coroner.  It  may  be  that 
the  office  took  its  origin  from  another  source  (0),  but  it  is 
certain  that  these  duties  formed  part  of  the  ancient  func- 
tions of  the  coroner. 

In  America  it  has  always  been  the  practice  to  hold  an 
inquisition  over  the  bodies  of  those  suddenly  dead.  The 
limits  of  this  institution  and  its  development  in  Pennsylvania 
properly  belong  to  another  part  of  this  work  (/>).  Suffice  it 
to  say  here  that  the  custom  is  almost  co-eval  with  English 
settlements  in  this  country. 

health  officers,  always  physicians,  who  are  to  report  the  cause  of 
death,  and  the  condition  of  the  body.  He  is  the  person  subsequently 
charged  with  prosecution  of  the  criminal.  Teulet  Les  Codes,  1860. 
In  Austria,  this  function  likewise  devolves  upon  the  public  prosecutor. 
In  Prussia  the  Judge  of  first  instance  assisted  by  a  surgeon  and  an 
actuary  and  two  officers  of  the  court  makes  the  investigation.  The 
procedure  there  is  as  well  by  hearing  testimony  for  and  against  the 
accused,  as  by  repeatedly  questioning  the  accused  with  a  view  to 
obtaining  a  confession.  Mittermayer's  Feuerbach's  Lehrbuch.  In 
Scotland  the  'Crowner'  is  the  same  as  the  Procureur  in  France."  See 
ii  Am.  L.  R.  488. 

(/)  6  Am.  Law  Reg.  (O.  S.)  385.  In  Bavaria  the  Ordinance 
Royale,  March  31,  1826,  provides  for  the  inspection  of  dead  bodies  by 
government  medical  men. 

(g)  6  Am.  Law  Reg.  (O.  S.)  385. 

(h)  See  article  by  R.  W.  Renton,  5  Judicial  Review,  167. 

(i)  6  Am.  Law  Reg.  (O.  S.)  385. 

(£)  It  is  argued  from  this  in  the  article  in  n  Am.  Law  Reg.  488, 
that  the  office  of  coroner  is  quite  different  from  the  Continental 
method.  (See  note  e,  supra),  but  the  object  is  the  same. 

(/)  See  Maine's  Ancient  Law. 

(m)  See  Post,  Part  I,  Chapter  i. 

(H)  See  Post,  Sects.  9,  10,  11  and  2  Inst.  31. 

(0)  See  Post,  Sec.  11,  and  see  article  by  Charles  Gross,  7  Pol. 
Set.  Quar.  656. 

(/>)  Part  II. 


INTRODUCTION  5 

Two  points  of  great  interest  arise  when  we  begin  the 
study  of  the  office  and  duties  of  coroners  in  Pennsylvania. 
First:  There  is  no  general  legislation  in  this  State  as  to 
the  duties  of  coroners  (g).  It  was  reported  by  the  judges 
who  investigated  .the  condition  of  the  law  of  this  common- 
wealth in  1808  that  several  of  the  older  English  Statutes 
were  still  in  force  in  Pennsylvania  (r).  As  a  corollary  to 
this  proposition,  it  follows  that  the  English  Common  Law 
whether  in  construing  the  statutes  or  otherwise,  except  in 
so  far  as  it  is  altered  by  the  change  of  our  form  of  govern- 
ment, and  the  changed  conditions  the  colonists  found  in 
America,  is  also  in  force  here  (s).  From  this  it  is  obvious 
that  a  competent  understanding  of  the  law  of  coroners  in 
Pennsylvania  can  only  be  had  by  a  careful  study  of  the 
English  law  prior  to  the  emigration  of  the  colonists  to 
America.  In  order  to  meet  present  conditions  fairly  and 
understandingly,  it  is  necessary  to  divide  the  consideration 
of  the  whole  subject  into  two  main  heads :  first,  a  consider- 
ation of  the  origin  and  growth  of  the  office  of  coroner  in 
England  together  with  his  powers  and  duties  there  down  to 
the  settlement  of  our  forefathers  in  this  country  (f)  ;  and 
secondly,  the  office  and  duties  of  coroners  in  Pennsylvania 
viewed  in  the  light  of  their  origin  (w). 

The  second  point  of  interest  which  draws  our  atten- 
tion is  that  in  obscure  times  the  office  of  coroner  and  the 
methods  of  his  inquest  may  have  had  much  to  do  with  the 
rise  and  development  of  the  system  of  trial  by  jury  (z/). 
The  discussion  of  this  topic  properly  belongs  in  another 
part  of  this  work. 

The  subject  of  coroners  is  closely  allied  to  that  of 

(q)  Ex  parte  Schulz,  6  Whart.  269-272  (1841);  Rentschler  v. 
Schuylkill  County,  I  Schuyl.  Leg.  Rec.  289  ( 1880)  ;  Lancaster  County 
v.  Dern,  2  Grant,  252  (1852),  and  see  McFadgen  v.  Chester  County,  10 
Pa.  C.  C.  R.  124,  s.  c.  7  Mont.  149  (1891)  ;  Pickett  v.  Erie  County,  19 
W.  N.  C.  60  s.  c.,  3  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  23  (1887);  Robert's  Digest,  100,  et 
seq. 

(r)  3  Binney,  599-601,  Robert's  Digest,  100,  et  seq.,  and  see  Post, 
Part  II. 

(s)  See  Part  II. 

(0  Part  I. 

(«)  Part  II. 

(v)  See  Gross,  Introduction  to  Select  Coroners'  Rolls,  XXX. 


6      OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

sheriffs  and  trenches  somewhat  upon  that  of  crimes.  If 
both  of  these  subjects  were  to  be  investigated  at  full  length 
there  would  be  no  room  for  a  consideration  of  the  proper 
duties  of  the  office  of  coroner.  To  avoid  unnecessarily  en- 
cumbering this  essay  with  irrelevant  matter  the  fact  that 
the  coroner  is  under  certain  circumstances  to  assume  the 
duties  of  some  other  officer  (w)  has  been  carefully  noted, 
but  the  duties  themselves  have  not  been  considered.  It  is 
necessary  to  go  into  the  nature  of  the  crimes  investigated 
by  coroners  to  a  certain  extent,  but  this  has  been  done  as 
briefly  and  concisely  as  possible,  not  in  the  hope  of  escaping 
the  additional  labor,  but  because  these  subjects  are  more 
properly  discussed  under  their  own  headings. 

(a/)  For  example,  the  Sheriff  or  Prothonotary. 


PART  I. 

The  Origin  and  Growth  of  the  Office  of  Coroner  in  Eng- 
land Together  with  his  Powers  and  Duties. 


CHAPTER  I. 

EARLY  HISTORY  OF  CORONERS. 

Sect.  i.  Sir  William  Blackstone  discreetly  remarked 
(a)  that  "the  coroner's  is  also  a  very  ancient  office  at  the 
common  law."  This  is  undoubtedly  true.  Two  questions, 
however,  arise  at  once;  how  ancient  is  it,  and  what  was  its 
origin?  Careful  study  of  the  first  of  these  questions  leads 
us  to  agree  with  Doderidge,  J.,  who  said  that  the  office  is 
so  old  that  no  one  knows  its  origin  (6).  There  are  several 
opinions  upon  the  question.  Great  authorities  have  spoken 
very  confidently  (c),  but  they  are  irreconcilable.  Most 
modern  writers  conclude  that  the  twentieth  chapter  of  the 
Articles  in  Eyre  of  1194  give  rise  to  the  office  of  coroner 
(d).  The  Mirror  places  the  date  of  its  origin  in  Saxon 
times  (e).  Upon  the  authority  of  that  statement  some  of 

(o)   i   Blackstone's  Commentaries,  346,  citing  2  Coke's  Institutes, 
31  and  4  Coke's  Institutes,  271. 
(&)  3  Bulstrode,  176. 

(c)  Mirror,   C.    I,   Sect.   3;    Staundeford's    Pleas   of   the   Crown, 
48-49;  2  Coke's  Institutes,  31;  Bacon  on  Government,  57;  I  Blackstone's 
Commentaries,    347;    Comyns'    Digest,    title    Officer,    G.    2;    6    Viner's 
Abridgment,  242;  Bacon's  Abridgment,  title  Coroners;  Selden's  Char- 
ters, 260;   Stubbs'   Constitutional  History,  Vol.   I,  p.  505;   I   Stephen's 
Criminal  Law,  217;  Gross's  Introduction  to  Select  Coroners  Rolls,  XV; 
and  see  Maitland,  Gneist,  Bigelow,  Palgrave  and  Reeves. 

(d)  "Praetea  in  quolibet  comitatu  eligantur  tres  milites  et  unus 
clericus  custodes  placitorum  coronae."    See  Stubbs'  Constitutional  His- 
tory, Vol.  I,  p.  505,  where  it  is  said  the  first  writer  to  mention  the 
office   is   Bracton,   who  gave  its   duties   so   fully  as   to  imply  it   was 
recently  established.     But  it  is  respectfully  submitted  that  to  clearly 
define  the  duties  of  the  office  is  to  indicate  that  it  had  been  long  estab- 
lished.   See  also  article  by  Charles  Gross,  7  Political  Science  Quarterly, 
656,  published  in   1892,  afterwards  expanded  into  the  introduction  to 
Select  Coroners  Rolls,  Volume  9,  of  the  Selden  Society  series;  and  see 
also  Maitland,  Gneist,  Bigelow,  Stephen,  Palgrave  and  Reeves. 

(e)  C.  j,  Sect.  3,  Auxi  ordains  fuer  coroner's  in  chescun  county  et 
viscounts  a  garder  le  peace  quant  les  countees  sui  demisterent  del  gard 
et  bayliffs  in  lieu  de  centeners.    2  Coke's  Institutes,  31-174.    See  Crabbe, 
History  of  Law  of  England,  CXI   (1831). 

(7) 


8      OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

the  most  revered  writers  on  the  law  have  gone  so  far  as  to 
say  that  the  office  was  created  in  the  time  of  King  Alfred 
(/).  It  is  stated  (g)  that  in  the  reign  of  that  monarch  the 
earls  were  called  to  London  and  made  into  a  parliament 
(h)t  they  then  surrendered  their  wardship  of  the  counties, 
and  coroners  and  sheriffs  were  then  ordained  to  keep  the 
peace  (t)- 

Nathaniel  Bacon  casts  a  doubt  upon  this  (&),  but  as- 
sures us  that  King  Alfred  put  one  of  his  judges  to  death 
for  passing  the  death  sentence  on  a  man  upon  the  record 
of  the  coroner  only,  without  allowing  the  delinquent  liberty 
to  traverse  (/).  He  seems  to  think  the  coroner's  office  was 
then  as  well  established  and  his  duties  as  clearly  defined  as 
they  are  today,  but  he  gives  no  authority  for  his  statement. 
In  the  charter  of  King  Aethelstan  to  the  monastery1  of  St. 
John  of  Beverly,  A.  D.  925,  we  find  mention  of  the  office 
as  one  of  long  standing  (m).  The  Charter  rhymes.  King 
Canute  is  supposed  to  have  made  a  law  that  whenever  a 
Dane  was  found  dead  and  was  unknown  and  the  cause  of 
death  was  not  known  it  should  be  entered  murder  and  the 


(/)  2  Coke's  Institutes,  31 ;  Comyns'  Digest,  title  Officer,  G.  2 ;  6 
Viner's  Abridgment,  242;  i  Blackstone's  Commentaries,  346.  "It  is 
evident  he  was  an  officer  in  Alfred's  time,  for  that  king  put  a  judge 
to  death  for  sentencing  one  to  suffer  death  upon  the  coroner's  record 
without  allowing  the  delinquent  liberty  to  traverse";  but  Viner  thinks 
him  later  than  the  sheriff,  more  the  servant  of  the  king  of  the  two,  6 
Viner's  Abridgment,  242. 

(g)  Mirror,  C.  I,  Sect.  3. 

(/t)  Doubt  is  cast  on  the  whole  by  this  statement,  for  it  is  very 
doubtful. 

(i)  Spel.  I,  Vice  Com.  Lamb  Eiren ;  Jervis  on  Coroners,  2  and  3 ; 
Bacon's  Abridgement,  title  Coroners ;  i  Blackstone's  Commentaries,  347  ; 
2  Coke's  Institutes,  31.  It  is  doubtful  if  the  office  is  as  old  as  that  of 
sheriff  if  what  Lord  Coke  says  to  the  effect  that  the  office  of  sheriff 
was  incident  to  that  of  Proconsul  under  the  Roman  rule  (Coke  upon 
Littleton,  168  A)  is  correct. 

(jfe)  Bacon  on  Government,  66;  6  Viner's  Abridgment,  242. 

(/)    Bacon  on  Government,  57. 

(m)  "If  a  man  be  found  slain  idrunkend 

Sterved  on  Sain  John  Rike  his  aghen  men 
Withouten  swike  his  aghen  bailiffs  make  ye  fight 
Nan  over  coroner  have  ye  might, 
Swa  hert  may  think  or  eghe  see." 
Swa  hert  think  or  eghe  see." 

Dugdale's  Monasticon  Anglicae,  Vol.  4,  p.  130  (Edition  of  1817), 
and  see  p.  171.  See  also  Birch  Cartularium  Saxonicum,  Vol.  II,  p. 
322.  Poulson  Beverlac,  39-149. 


hundred  should  be  amerced  (w).  If  this  be  true  there 
must  have  been  an  office  in  the  time  of  King  Canute  very 
closely  resembling  that  of  coroner.  But  we  cannot  safely 
rely  on  such  authorities.  The  glaring  inaccuracies  of  the 
Mirror  are  universally  known  (0). 

Sect  2.  The  institution,  as  we  shall  see  later  (/>), 
is  one  more  adapted  to  the  Norman  notions  of  the  king's 
peace  and  of  feudalism  than  to  the  Saxon  ideas  of  a  free 
people,  courts  leet  and  courts  baron.  In  Saxon  times  the 
power  of  royal  judicature  and  pleas  of  the  crown  were  not 
sufficiently  developed  (q)  to  admit  a  place  for  such  an 
office. 

Sect.  3.  The  period  during  which  the  office  was  in- 
stituted would  seem  then  to  be  limited  to  the  time  between 
the  Norman  Conquest  in  1066  and  1194.  Modern  scientific 
investigators  are  almost  unanimous  in  saying  that  the  Arti- 
cles in  Eyre  of  1194  are  the  earliest  authentic  mention  of 
coroners.  They  place  the  origin  of  the  office  at  that  date. 
It  is,  however,  respectfully  submitted  that  it  does  not  nec- 
essarily follow  that  the  first  authentic  mention  should  in- 
dicate the  foundation  of  the  offices.  Crabbe  goes  so  far 
as  to  say  "they  are  first  mentioned  by  name  in  this  statute 
(Magna  Charter  c.  17)  although  allusion  is  made  to  the 
office  in  the  capitula  of  Henry  II  and  in  those  given  in  the 
reign  of  Richard  I  to  the  justices  in  Eyre  wherein  they  were 
directed  to  choose  three  knights  and  one  clerk  in  every  county 
to  be  custodes  placitorum  coronae  (r}.  Evidence  as  to 
county  coroners  before  1194  rests  on  reputed  statutes  and 
charters  and  on  one  reported  case  (s). 

Sect.  4.  In  November  1194  Geoff ry  Fitz  Peter  and 
William  de  Stuttville  two  of  the  justices  of  the  Curia  regis 
record  a  case  before  them  at  Westminister  to  the  effect  that 


(n)  Mirror,  C  I,  Sect.  3. 

(0)  Mirror  was  probably  written  or  edited  by  Home  before  17 
Edward  II ;  probably  during  the  reign  of  Edward  I. 

(P)  Post,  Sect.  ii. 

(q)  See  Gross's  Introduction  to  Select  Coroners  Rolls  and  Wel- 
lington's The  King's  Coroner. 

(r)  History  of  the  English  Law  (first  American  Edition)   150. 

(s)  Rotuli  Curiae  Regis,  Vol.  i,  o.  50-51-  See  article  of  Charles 
Gross,  7  Political  Science  Quarterly,  056  (1892). 


10    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

Hugh  de  Scrverbi  had  accused  Alured  de  Glentham  as  prin- 
cipal and  a  certain  Jordan  as  accessory  to  the  killing  of  his 
brother.  Hugh  stated  that  after  the  commission  of  the 
crime  the  accused  had  been  placed  in  custody  of  the  bailiffs 
of  Gerard  de  Camville,  sheriff  of  Lincolnshire.  The  coro- 
ners (f)  having  been  called  to  Westminister  say  that  at  the 
first  county  court  after  the  homicide,  Hugh  accused  Jordan 
as  principal  and  Alured  as  accessory.  The  sheriff  and  men 
of  the  County  confirm  the  testimony  of  the  coroners. 

Gerard  de  Camville  was  sheriff  of  Lincolnshire  from 
1189  to  1194  with  the  exception  of  a  few  weeks  in  1191 
(«).  In  March  1194  he  was  removed  by  Richard  I  and 
serious  accusations  of  treason  were  brought  against  him 
(v),  for  he  was  an  ardent  supporter  of  John.  It  is  not 
likely  therefore  that  Gerard  was  afterwards  in  office.  It 
seems  more  than  probable  that  Hugh  brought  his  accusation 
before  March  1194  and  therefore  before  September  1194, 
when  the  Articles  in  Eyre  were  issued.  It  is  moreover  pos- 
sible that  the  case  of  Hugh  v.  Alured  et  al.  was  as  early 
as  1189  for  both  Geoff ry  Fitz  Peter  and  William  de  Stutt- 
ville  were  itinerant  justices  at  that  time  (w).  Here  then 
is  reasonable  proof  that  whatever  may  have  been  the  origin 
of  the  coroners  office,  the  articles  in  Eyre  of  1194  are  not. 

Sect.  5.  Though  we  cannot  appeal  to  so  succinct  au- 
thority to  carry  the  office  back  of  that  time  still  we  have 
evidence  which  deserves  grave  consideration.  In  1189  the 
burgesses  of  Colchester  received  from  Richard  I  a  grant  (x} 


(f)  Maitland  strongly  opposes  the  view  that  these  were  coroners 
duly  elected  before  the  Articles  in  Eyre  of  1194  (English  Historical 
Review,  Vol.  VITI,  p.  758).  They  were  called,  he  claims,  as  knights  of 
the  shire,  not  as  coroners.  If  that  be  the  case  we  must  necessarily  ask 
how  was  it  that  so  short  a  time  after  the  creation  of  the  office  in  those 
days  of  infinitely  slow  travel  did  the  justices  in  Eyre  find  coroners  in 
Lincolnshire.  Besides  we  must  remember  this  case  was  tried  before 
it  came  up  at  Westminister.  For  a  discussion  of  this  question  see 
Gross's  Introduction  to  Select  Coroners  Rolls  XVIII. 

(M)  Hovenden,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  XXIX,  LVI,  134,  137;  Foss's  Judges, 
Vol.  II,  p.  48.  He  was  made  sheriff  by  Richard,  soon  after  the  latter 
came  to  the  throne :  Gross's  Introduction  to  Select  Coroners,  Rolls 
XVII. 

(v)  Hovenden,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  241-43. 

(«/)  Foss  Judges,  Vol.  I,  p.  335.     Citing  Pipe  Roll  34,  35. 

(x)  Afterwards  confirmed  by  Henry  III,  "Quod  ipsi  ponant  de 
seipsis  ballivos  quos  cunique  voluerient  et  justit  (iarios)  ad  servandum 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  CORONERS  11 

of  the  right  to  appoint  an  officer  who  seems  to  have  been  a 
coroner.  In  the  reign  of  Henry  III,  they  demanded  the 
privilege  of  appointing  a  coroner  by  concession  of  Richard 
I,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  they  had  reference  to  the 
grant  of  1189  (y).  In  the  thirteenth  or  fourteenth  century 
the  citizens  of  Norwich  claimed  that  they  had  appointed  their 
coroners  since  the  reign  of  Stephen,  but  a  hostile  contempor- 
ary chronicler  denies  that  they  had  and  asserts  that  Norwich 
did  not  have  this  privilege  "for  a  hundred  years  or  more 
after  the  Norman  Conquest"  (2).  Jervis  seems  to  believe 
coroners  existed  long  before  1 194  but  he  is  not  very  adequate 
as  to  what  authority  he  has  for  his  statements.  He  says  they 
were  called  "Serviens  regis"  (a)  in  the  reign  of  Henry  II. 
In  the  reign  of  Richard  I  they  were  styled  "custos  placi- 
torum  coronae"  (b),  and  in  Magna  Carta  and  subsequent 
statutes  "coronator"  (c). 

Sect.  6.  "Mr.  Round  has  recently  called  attention  to 
the  existence  of  early  justices  of  counties  similar  to  those 
of  boroughs.  In  Henry  I's  time  Ralph  Passeleive  was  just- 
arius  of  Norfolk,  and  1141  the  Empress  Maud  granted 
to  Geoffrey  de  Mandeville  'ut  sit  capitalis  justic'  a  in  Esse.va 
*  *  *  de  placitis  et  forisfactis  quare  pertinnerint  ad  coram 
mean?  (d).  Considerable  obscurity  overhangs  the  functions 
of  these  justices,  but  is  not  improbable  that  they  were  the 
predecessors  of  the  latter  county  coroners.  (?). 

"Equally  obscure  is  a  passage  in  the  Pipe  Roll  of  Henry 
I,  p.  91.  Under  the  heading  'Norfolk  and  Suffolk'  a  certain 


placita  coronae  nostrae  et  ad  placitiandum  eadem  placita  infra  burgutn 
suutn"  Madox  Firma  Burgi  28. 

(y)  There  is  a  marked  resemblance  between  this  charter  and  Chap- 
ter 20  of  the  Articles  in  Eyre  of  1194,  as  also  to  the  charters  for  munic- 
ipal coroners  granted  by  John. 

(z)  Monasticon  Anglicanum,  Vol.  IV,  p.  14.  The  narration  is 
taken  from  the  register  of  Bingham.  The  same  claim  of  the  citizens 
is  entered  in  the  civic  records  of  Norwich,  Archaeological  Journal, 
Vol.  46,  p.  303.  See  Gross  Introduction  to  Select  Coroners  Rolls,  XV, 
note  3. 

(a)  Jervis  on  Coroners  2,  See  Umfreville  Lex  Coronatoris,  XX. 

(fr)  Jervis  on  Coroners  2,  Wilkins  Legis  Anglo  Saxonicae,  337. 

(c)  Jervis  on  Coroners  2,  Wilkins  Legis  Anglo  Saxonicae,  346. 

(d)  Round,  Geoffrey  de  Mandeville,  92,  no,  373  and  see  also  Ibid 
150,  167. 

(?)  Gross  Introduction  to  Select  Coroners  Rolls,  XVI. 


12    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

Benjamin  accounts  for  £4,  55.,  fut  custos  diat  placita  qual 
coronae  regts  pertinent'  (/).  Professor  Maitland  says: 
'A  Benjamin  who  has  no  surname  looks  uncommonly  like  a 
Jew  and  perhaps  the  pleas  that  he  wished  "to  keep"  are 
pleas  concerning  Jews.'  If  this  interpretation  is  correct  the 
prevailing  view  regarding  the  origin  of  the  exchequer  of  the 
Jews  will  have  to  be  modified.  The  language  of  the  entry 
seems  to  indicate  that  Benjamin  was  a  coroner"  (g). 

Sect.  7.  Henry  I  is  supposed  to  have  granted  to  the 
citizens  of  London  (h)  the  right  to  elect  a  " justitiarius"  to 
hold  pleas  of  the  Crown  (*').  Professor  Gross  in  speaking 
of  this  Charter  and  the  Charter  of  Richard  I  to  Colchester 
says:  "Professor  Maitland  has  raised  certain  objections  to 
my  interpretation  of  the  passages  in  the  Charters  of  London 
and  Colchester  (&).  His  opinion  on  this  or  any  kindred  sub- 
ject is  certainly  worthy  of  careful  consideration.  'The  duty 
of  a  coroner  in  after  times'  he  says  'is  custodire  placita  coro- 
nae and  no  doubt  servare  is  equivalent  to  custodire.  But 
then  in  these  cases  the  same  person  is  both  to  keep  and  to 
hold  pleas  of  the  Crown  *  *  *  it  seems  necessary  to  insist 
that  from  1194  onwards  we  have  in  the  coroner  an  officer 
who  while  he  is  bound  cu-stodire  placita  coronae  is  not  en- 
titled or  at  all  events  not  empowered  by  the  terms  of  his 
appointment  tenere  (or  placitare)  placita  coronae.  Is  it  not 
the  very  essence  of  the  matter  that  in  the  coroners  we  have 
persons  whose  duty  it  was  to  'keep'  pleas  which  other  per- 
sons are  to  'hold'?  What  Professor  Maitland  here  states 
regarding  the  functions  of  the  coroner  is  certainly  true  after 

(/)  Mr.  Gross  in  his  note  to  this  passage  says,  "my  attention  was 
first  called  to  this  reference  in  English  Historical  Review,  Vol.  VIII, 
p.  709  c.  f.  Pollock  &  Maitland,  History  of  English  Law,  Vol.  I,  p. 
520."  Introduction  to  Select  Coroners  Rolls,  XVII. 

(g)  Gross's  Introduction  to  Select  Coroners  Rolls,  XVII. 

(h)  This  charter  also  greatly  resembles  the  charter  of  Richard 
I  to  Colchester,  the  twentieth  chapter  of  the  Articles  in  Eyre  of  1194 
and  the  charters  for  municipal  coroners  granted  during  the  reign  of 
John. 

(t)  "Justitiarium  quemcunque  vel  qualem  voluerint  de  seipsis  ad 
custodiendum  placita  coronae  meae  et  eadem  placitandum."  Rymer 
Foedera,  Vol.  I,  p.  n.  Select  Charters,  108.  In  Stephen's  time  Ger- 
vase  de  Cornhill  and  Goeffrey  de  Mandeville  held  this  office.  Round's 
Goeffrey  de  Mandeville,  453.  Gross's  Introduction  to  Select  Coroners 
Rolls,  XV. 

(k)  English  Historical  Review,  VIII,  758-60. 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  CORONERS  13 

the  time  of  King  John.  But  is  it  true  of  the  twelfth  century  ? 
The  Great  Charter  of  1215  (ch.  24)  (/)  enacts  that  'nullus 
vicecomcs  constabularins  vel  coronatores  vel  alii  balivi  nostri 
teneant  placita  coronae  meae.'  Does  not  this  imply  that 
before  1215,  coroners  not  merely  'kept'  but  also  'held'  pleas? 
Moreover  in  dealing  later  on  with  the  functions  of  the  coro- 
ner we  shall  see  that  traces  of  these  higher  judical  duties  ad- 
here to  the  office  in  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  centuries 
(m).  The  burgesses  of  Colchester  in  the  reign  of  Henry  III 
were  probably  right  in  identifying  their  coroners  with  the 
'Justices'  whom  they  were  allowed  to  have  by  Richard  I's 
charter"  (n). 

Sect.  8.  We  cannot  with  the  limited  facilities  at  hand 
dispute  what  either  of  these  learned  writers  says,  much  less 
decide  between  them,  but  were  we  to  take  the  position  oc- 
cupied by  Professor  Maitland  we  would  be  obliged  to  meet 
the  very  awkward  question,  why  does  Magna  Carta  forbid 
coroners  to  "hold"  pleas  of  the  Crown?  It  might  be  an- 
swered that  they  had  no  right  to  "hold"  such  pleas  and  did 
so  without  right ;  that  that  was  the  grievance  complained  of 
and  corrected  by  the  Great  Charter.  But  the  evidence  be- 
fore us  seems  to  tend  against  such  a  view  for  we  find  in 
the  earlier  charters  some  authorized  to  "keep"  and  others 
to  "hold"  as  well  as  to  "keep."  The  most  logical  conclusion 
is  that  those  persons  who  were  authorized  to  "hold"  as  well 
as  to  "keep"  pleas  of  the  Crown  were  also  coroners  and  that 
coroners  "held"  pleas  of  the  Crown  of  right. 

Sect.  9.  In  the  laws  of  Henry  I  we  find  a  provision  "de 
rerum  inventione"  the  "ostendatur  tribtis  partibus  vincineti 
(three  villes}  ut  testimonium  habeant  de  inventione"  (o). 
While  this  does  not  mention  pleas  of  the  Crown  we  cannot 
help  agreeing  with  Umfreville  that  it  sounds  like  a  coroner's 
inquest.  Moreover  the  same  provision  is  found  in  the  laws 
of  the  Conquerer  (/>). 

(/)   Evidently  a  mistake  for  Chapter  17. 

(m)  See  Gross's  Introduction  to  Select  Coroners  Rolls,  "Functions 
of  the  Coroner,"  p.  XXIV,  et  seq. 

(n)   Gross's  Introduction  to  Select  Coroners  Rolls,  XVI. 

(o)  Umfreville  Lex  Coronatoris  XXVI  Wilkins  Legis  Anglo  Sax- 
onicae,  220. 
(p)  Ibid. 


14    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

In  the  laws  of  Edward  the  Confessor,  we  find  the  pro- 
vision "Si  quiipsiam  murdratus  alicubi  reperiebatur  quere- 
batus  apud  villiam  interfector  illiiis"  and  that  "super  sacra- 
vncntum"  without  naming  the  office  or  the  officer  (q).  Here 
again  we  are  pointed  to  the  duties  of  the  coroner.  Could 
these  authorities  be  thoroughly  relied  upon  we  could  argue 
from  them  that  the  office  really  existed  under  Edward  the 
Confessor  and  from  his  time  on,  with  varying  fortunes  until 
firmly  established  in  1194. 

Sect.  10.  Two  grave  difficulties  confront  us  in  attempt- 
ing to  reach  such  a  conclusion  and  these  must  be  surmounted 
before  any  theory  on  the  subject  ca,n  be  given  serious  con- 
sideration. In  the  first  place  the  office  is  not  mentioned  by 
Glanville  (qq}.  His  silence  is  eloquent.  We  may  say  that 
the  office  was  not  well  established  nor  the  duties  clearly  de- 
fined at  the  time  Glanville  wrote.  In  his  meagre  account  of 
criminal  procedure  he  may  have  had  no  occasion  to  refer 
to  coroners.  "Even  after  1194  such  records  as  the  Rotuli 
Curvae  Regis  rarely  mention  (r)  coroners  during  the  reign 
of  Richard  I  (s).  In  the  second  place  the  printed  Pipe 
Rolls  of  2-19  Henry  II  are  silent  on  the  subject  of  coroners. 
This  difficulty,  however,  may  be  met  by  the  same  argument. 
The  office  is  scarcely  mentioned  by  them  even  after  the  fam- 
ous article  in  Eyre. 

Mr.  Gross  advances  a  theory  (t)  which  may  well  be 
quoted.  He  says:  "As  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Curia  Regis 
gradually  increased  and  that  of  the  local  public  courts  dimin- 
ished in  the  century  following  the  Norman  Conquest,  the 
king's  peace  was  extended,  the  category  of  crown  pleas  was 
enlarged  (u)  and  new  agents  were  therefore  needed  to  see 
that  criminals  were  brought  to  trial  before  the  itinerant 

(q)  Umfreville  Lex  Coronatoris,  XXXI;  Wilkins  Legis  Anglo 
Saxonicae,  199,  Chapter  15. 

(qq)  But  Glanville  scarcely  mentions  treasure  trove  which  un- 
doubtedly was  of  great  importance  at  that  time. 

(r)  How  often  do  our  State  reports  refer  to  them?  There  are 
perhaps  a  dozen  references  to  the  office  in  280  volumes. 

(j)  Gross's  Introduction  to  Select  Coroners  Rolls,  XVIII. 

(0  Gross's  Introduction  to  Select  Coroners  Rolls,  XIX. 

(«)  Stubbs  Constitutional  History  Sects.  72,  73,  128,  163.  Bige- 
low  Procedure,  75-85.  Pollock  Oxford  Lectures,  86.  Maitland's  Manor 
Pleas,  pp.  LIII,  LIV. 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  CORONERS  15 

justices.  The  coroner  was  in  fact  an  important  concomitant 
in  the  Eyre  system,  the  latter  needed  the  active  co-operation 
of  the  former." 

Both  existed  primarily  for  the  king's  profit  (v),  both 
were  useful  adjuncts  of  a  highly  centralized  government. 
The  development  of  the  coroner's  office  may  thus  have  been 
contemporary  with  that  of  the  itinerant  justices,  both  offices 
were  perhaps  tentatively  employed  under  Henry  I,  fell  into 
abeyance  under  Stephen  and  were  firmly  established  under 
Henry  II.  Moreover,  Henry  II  strove  to  curtail  the  author- 
ity of  the  sheriffs  («/).  Some  of  their  functions  ultimately 
passed  to  the  coroners  and  the  latter  acted  as  a  check  on  the 
former  (;r). 

The  rise  of  the  office  of  coroner  seems  to  imply  a  cor- 
responding depression  of  that  of  sheriff,  the  establishment 
of  the  new  office  may  have  been  the  result  of  Henry  II's 
policy  of  reducing  the  power  of  the  sheriffs  and  centralizing 
the  administration  of  justice  in  the  itinerant  justices  and  the 
Curia  Regis.  Whether  this  hypothesis  is  tenable  or  not  it 
is  probable  that  chapter  20  of  the  Articles  of  1 194  is  merely 
a  declaratory  act  referring  to  an  institution  already  in 
existence. 

Sect.  ii.  A  theory  might  be  advanced  which  would 
satisfactorily  explain  the  origin  and  rise  of  the  office  of 
coroner.  It  might  be  argued  that  the  office  having  as  it  does 
much  to  do  with  pleas  of  the  crown  is  closely  connected  with 
the  king's  peace. 

From  early  times  there  has  been  a  coroner  of  the  king's 
household.  It  may  have  been  that  the  coroner  was  at  first 
the  officer  who  took  cognizance  of  breaches  of  the  peace 
within  the  king's  household.  As  the  king's  peace  was  ex- 
tended coroners  may  have  been  appointed  having  jurisdic- 


(v)  The  coroner  was  expected  to  seek  diligently  for  the  forfeited 
chattels  of  felons,  for  deodands,  wreck  and  treasure  trove.  See  Brit- 
ton,  Liber  I,  p.  XXXI,  Statute  4  Edward  I,  11-18,  I  Statutes  of  the 
Realm  40,  Abbreviatio  Originaliam,  Vol.  I,  p.  18;  Placita  de  Quo  War- 
ranto,  114.  In  the  Coroners  Rolls  less  concern  is  often  manifested  to 
bring  the  felon  to  justice  than  to  secure  his  chattels  for  the  King. 
Gross's  Introduction  to  Select  Coroners  Rolls,  XXIV,  et  sea.  and  see 
Ibid  XIX. 

(w)  Stubbs  Constitutional  History,  Sect.  163. 

<.*•)  Gross's  Introduction  to  Select  Coroners  Rolls,  XXVI,  et  seq. 


16    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

tion  in  certain  places  or  towns  specially  favored  by  the  king 
with  his  peace  until  it  was  spread  over  the  entire  land,  by 
which  time  coroners  had  come  to  be  appointed  in  every 
county.  But  this  does  not  accord  with  known  facts.  The 
peace  of  the  king  had  been  extended  to  all  England  before 
the  Conquest  (;y),  while  our  best  information  seems  to  be 
that  the  office  of  coroner  was  a  purely  Norman  institution. 

A  more  plausible  theory  seems  to  be  that  this  office  was 
established  for  the  very  purpose  it  accomplished ;  the  gradual 
sapping  away  of  the  power  of  the  local  public  courts,  and 
the  accumulation  of  their  power  in  the  hands  of  one  of  the 
king's  officers.  This  might  indeed  account  for  the  presence 
in  the  Great  Charter  of  the  chapter  above  mentioned  for  it 
cannot  but  seem  highly  improbable  that  the  English  people 
struggling  with  a  tyranical  king  would  have  put  into  their 
charter  a  provision  limiting  the  powers  of  one  of  his  officers 
and  therefore  offensive  to  him  if  there  had  not  been  a  great 
abuse  to  be  corrected  and  it  seems  equally  unlikely  that  in 
twenty-one  years  an  office  created  in  1194  could  have  be- 
come so  offensive  to  the  English  people  as  to  require  such 
summary  redress. 

Perhaps  a  people  who  had  seen  the  power  of  their  local 
public  courts  gradually  sapped  away  and  one  after  another 
of  their  duties  and  privileges  accumulated  into  the  hands 
of  kings  "crowner"  sought  by  this  chapter  to  check  the  fur- 
ther growth  of  the  office. 

Sect.  12.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  cause  and  earli- 
est history  of  the  office  of  coroner  it  was  certainly  in  exist- 
ence in  1194  (2).  During  the  reign  of  John,  several  mu- 
nicipal charters  were  granted,  among  others  those  to  the 
cinque  ports,  which  included,  among  the  privileges  they 
gave,  the  right  to  elect  or  appoint  coroners,  called  in  these 
charters  "custodes  placitorum  coronae"  or  "coronatores" 
(a).  The  words  were  used  interchangeably  during  the 
period  (6). 


(y)  Pollock's  Oxford  Lectures,  pp.  65  to  90. 

(2)  Ante,  Sect,  i,  note  d. 

(a)  Gross's  Introduction  to  Select  Coroners  Rolls,  XVII. 

(&)   Selden's  Pleas,  98. 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  CORONERS  17 

It  is  not  to  be  doubted  that  at  this  time  the  coroner  not 
only  received  appeals  (c)  and  made  inquisitions,  but  that 
he  tried  the  criminals  as  well  (rf).  It  is  probable  he  received 
appeals  of  any  felony  or  mayhem  on  the  plaintiff  finding 
sufficient  pledges  to  the  Sheriff  to  prosecute  the  appeal  with 
effect  (e).  As  Hawkins  says  (/),  "the  books  generally  men- 
tion the  coroner  as  the  person  before  whom  such  appeal 
is  to  be  commenced  without  joining  any  other  with  him; 
from  whence  it  seems  clearly  intimated  that  the  coroner  is 
the  only  person  who  hath  jurisdiction  in  this  matter."  He 
might  receive  such  an  appeal  without  the  concurrence  of  any 
other  officer  (g).  "Before  Magna  Carta"  says  Viner  (h) 
"the  coroner  had  the  following  jurisdiction;  (i)  Inquisi- 
tion in  case  of  violent  or  untimely  death,  (2)  abjurations 
of  outlawry,  etc.,  (3)  Appeals  by  bill,  etc." 

They  probably  abused  their  power.  Nathaniel  Bacon 
tells  of  a  case  of  a  coroner  who  obtained  a  confession  from 
a  prisoner  by  torture  (»'). 

Though  chapter  17  of  Magna  Carta  forbids  them  to 
hold  pleas  of  the  crown  (&)  they  seem  to  have  held  jury 
trials  in  civil  cases  for  some  time  afterwards  (/).  Hale  tells 
us  (m)  "By  Magna  Carta  chapter  17  he  cannot  determine 


(c)  2  Hawkins  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  Chap.  9,  Sect.  39,  2  Hale's 
Pleas  of  the  Crown,  67. 

(rf)  2  Coke's  Institutes,  30-31-32;  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  56; 
I  Blacks  tone's  Commentaries,  347;  Dalton  on  Sheriffs,  c.  10. 

(e)  Bracton,  122-147;  Fleta  Lib,  i  c.  25;  Britton  5;  Staundeford's 
Pleas  of  the  Crown,  64,  22  Assize,  97-98.  Finch  321-2,  4  Henry  VI 
folio  16.  Brooke's  Abridgment,  appeal  44,  contra  17  Assize  5.  Brooke's 
Abridgement,  appeal  56,  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  52-64.  Hale's 
Summary  171.  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  c.  9,  Sect.  39. 

(/)  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  c.  9,  Sect.  39. 

(g)  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  67.  Hale's  Summary,  172.  2 
Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c.  9,  Sect.  39. 

(A)  6  Viners  Abridgment,  243. 

(»')  Bacon  on  Government,  55. 

(k)  See  Bracton  147,  Fleta  Lib.  i  Chap.  25,  22  Assize  97-98,  Brooks 
Abridgment  Appeal  56-62.  Corone  82,  2  Coke's  Institutes,  30-31-32; 
a  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  67. 

(/)  Bracton's  Note  Book  II,  227-389-420-452-466-516-571-572-627- 
675-682,  III  151-155-228-264-473,  Salt.  Soc.  IV  84-95-97;  Dugdale's  Mon- 
asticon  Anglicae,  Vol.  VI,  p.  2,  and  see  Article  by  Charles  Gross  7 
Political  Science  Quarterly  656.  They  either  took  the  place  of  the 
sheriff  or  more  often  sat  with  him.  Gross's  Introduction  to  Select 
Coroners  Rolls  XXV,  as  to  the  coroner's  Counter  Roll  see  Post 
Sect.  40. 

(m)  2  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  67. 


18    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

the  appeal,  but  he  may  still  ( I )  record  the  non  suit  of  the 
plaintiff  in  an  appeal  by  bill  before  him  (n)  ;  (2)  Award  a 
capias  and  alias  to  the  sheriff  and  thereupon  demand  the  de- 
fendant at  five  counties  and  outlaw  the  defendant  (0), 
though  Staundeford  (/>)  makes  a  doubt  of  this  and  thinks 
the  appeal  must  be  removed  by  certiorari  into  the  King's 
Bench  whence  only  process  of  outlawry  can  issue.  But  to 
have  the  appeal  before  the  coroner  and  sheriff  (g)  deter- 
mined it  must  go  to  the  King's  Bench  on  certiorari." 

Sect.  13.  It  is  probable  that  at  this  time  none  but 
knights  were  coroners  (r).  The  Statute  of  Merton  in  1235 
(s)  joins  the  words  "Alius  legalibus  militibus"  to  "custodi- 
bus  placita  coronae"  (£)  assuming  that  all  coroners  are 
knights  (u).  It  seems  hardly  probable,  therefore,  that  Na- 
thaniel Bacon  is  correct  in  his  remark  (v)  that  before  the 
Statute  of  Westminster  I  c  10  (w)  the  coroners  were  poor 
and  mean  and  maintained  themselves  by  bribery  and  extor- 
tion "and  being  found  guilty  had  not  sufficient  to  give  re- 
compense" (ww}. 

We  have  seen  that  whensoever  the  office  of  coroner  may 
have  had  its  rise  it  was  well  established  at  the  time  of 
Magna  Carta,  so  well  that  its  functions  were  limited  by  that 
Statute  (AT).  It  is  frequently  spoken  of  during  the  reign 


(n)  22  Assize  93,  and  see  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  cap. 
Si- 

(o)  22  Assize  97,  and  they  also  passed  judgment  on  felons  caught 
in  the  act.  Britton,  Book  I,  37-56.  Salt.  Soc.,  Vol.  IV,  214  c.  f.  Year 
Book  30-31  Edward  I,  502.  Gross's  Introduction  to  Select  Coroners 
Rolls  XXV. 

(p)  Pleas  of  the  Crown  Lib.  II  cap.  14  f.  64  a. 

(q)  See  Post  Sect.  37.  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  Lib. 
II  cap.  14, 

(r)  2  Coke's  Institutes  31,  176.  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown 
48-49.  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  c  9.  Sects,  i,  2,  and  3. 

(j)  I  Statutes  of  the  Realm  40. 

(0  Chapter  3,  see  Umfreville  Lex  Coronatoris  XXIV. 

(«)  23  Assize  pi.  7.  2  Bacon's  Abridgment  title,  Coroners  (A) 
note  (a)  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  c  9  Sect.  3,  Jervis  on  Cor- 
oners, 10. 

(v)  Bacon  on  Government  179. 

(w)   I  Statutes  of  the  Realm  40. 

(ww)  But  his  view  is  supported  by  Staundeford,  Pleas  of  the 
Crown  cap.  51  and  Fleta  Lib.  i  cap.  18. 

(*)  See  Ante,  Sect.  12. 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  CORONERS  19 

of  Henry  III  (3;).  Bracton  mentions  it  in  his  treatise  (2). 
It  would  not,  then,  be  suprising  if  we  were  to  find  about  this 
time  a  general  statute  on  the  subject  and  such  is  the  case. 
A  discussion  of  the  Statute  of  4  Edward  I.  properly  belongs 
under  another  heading  (a)  and  will  be  there  found.  For 
the  present  let  us  observe  that  the  office  and  duties  which, 
possibly,  ever  since  the  Norman  Conquest  had  been  develop- 
ing, crystalized  into  Statute  Law  in  1276  (&).  From  that 
time  on  the  office  and  duties  of  coroners  are  the  subject  of 
frequent  decisions  and  statutory  enactments,  but  yet  the 
office  and  its  duties  remain  as  we  shall  find  out  later  (c) 
much  the  same  today  as  they  were  in  1276.  From  this 
fact  alone  we  might  draw  an  inference  strongly  adverse 
to  the  orthodox  theory  that  the  office  was  created  by  the 
Articles  in  Eyre  of  1194,  scarcely  one  hundred  years  be- 
fore. 


(31)  For  the  functions  of  coroners  in  the  reigns  of  John  and  Henry 
III,  see  Rotili  Curiae  Regis,  Vol.  I,  pp.  51-418.  Selden's  Pleas  3-9-19- 
29-33-45-63-70-84-88-100-117.  Maitland's  Gloucester  Pleas  4-15-20-47-55- 
78-94-116. 

(*)  See  Post,  Sects.  25,  27. 

(a)  Post,  Sects.  25,  26,  27,  28. 

(6)  In  Pollock  and  Maitland's  History  of  the  English  Law,  Vol. 
II,  p.  641,  this  "statute"  is  spoken  of  as  "aprocryphal"  for  a  discussion 
of  the  authenticity  of  the  statute,  see  Post,  Sect.  26. 

(f)  Part  II. 


CHAPTER  II. 

DEFINITION  AND  DIFFERENT  KINDS  OF  CORONERS  IN 
ENGLAND.      THEIR  JURISDICTION. 

Sect.  14.  The  word  "Coroner"  is  defined  with  typical 
ingenuousness  by  a  leading  dictionary  (a)  as  "a  municipal 
officer  formerly  charged  with  the  interests  of  the  private 
property  of  the  Crown  but  whose  main  function  in  modern 
times  is  to  hold  inquests  on  the  bodies  of  those  who  may 
be  supposed  to  have  died  violent  deaths."  He  is  some- 
times spoken  of  as  a  principal  conservator  of  the  peace  (&) 
in  every  county.  He  is  a  very  ancient  (bb)  officer  (c)  of 
the  Crown  (d) — coronator — his  name  is  derived  from 
corona  (?)  and  "he  is  so  called  because  he  hath  principally 
to  do  with  pleas  of  the  Crown  or  such  wherein  the  King  is 
more  immediately  concerned"'  (/).  Lord  Coke  says  "he 
is  an  officer  of  the  Crown  and  has  conusance  of  some  pleas 
which  are  called  placita  coronae"  (g}.  If  by  this  he  means 
that  the  coroner  may  receive  appeals  (/»)  and  that  his  in- 
quisition may  be  used  in  place  of  an  indictment  it  would 
seem  to  be  a  stretch  of  the  word  "conusance."  Surely  we 
would  hardly  say  (without  qualification)  that  a  police  mag- 
istrate in  Pennsylvania  has  conusance  of  murder  cases. 
The  word  conusance  connotes  more  to  our  minds.  Out- 
lawry cases  (t)  can  hardly  be  called  pleas  of  the  crown 
though  they  may  be  considered  such  in  a  qualified  sense.  If, 


(o)  Century  dictionary. 

(fr)  Britton  Cap.  i  Sect.  14;  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  c  8, 
Sect.  5;  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  48-49. 
(&&)  3  Bulstrode,  176. 

(c)  Staudeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  48-49,  2  Coke's   Institutes 
31;  I  Blackstone's  Commentaries,  346;  4  Coke's  Institutes,  271. 

(d)  2  Coke's  Institutes,  31;  4  Coke's  Institutes,  271;  Comyns  Digest 
title  officer,  p.  i. 

(e)  2  Coke's  Institutes,  31. 

(/)  Register  172,  Fitzherbert  Natura  Brevium,  164;  2  Coke's  In- 
stitutes, 31 ;  4  Coke's  Institutes,  271 ;  i  Blackstone's  Commentaries, 
346,  and  see  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  c.  9,  Sects,  i,  2,  and  3. 

(g)  2  Coke's  Institutes,  31. 

(/»)  Post,  Sect.  36. 

(f)  Post,  Sect.  37. 
(20) 


KINDS  OF  CORONERS  IN  ENGLAND  21 

on  the  other  hand,  the  expression  intends  what  was  after- 
wards stated  by  Chief  Baron  Comyns,  Lord  Coke  is  wrong. 
The  digester  tells  us  on  the  authority  of  Lord  Coke's  remark 
"the  coroner  is  an  ancient  officer  of  the  Crown  whose  duty 
it  is  to  hold  pleas  of  the  Crown"  (£).  We  have  seen  (/) 
even  in  Lord  Coke's  time,  a  fortiori  in  Chief  Baron  Comyns, 
the  coroner  had  long  since  ceased  to  "hold"  pleas  of  the 
Crown  (m).  The  coroner  has  also  been  defined  as  he  who 
"recorded  all  pleas  of  the  Crown  in  the  torn,  all  inquisitions 
of  felo  de  se  and  people  coming  to  an  untimely  end  and 
likewise  all  outlawries  and  these  coroners  were  in  the  nature 
of  comptrollers  to  the  sheriff.,  keeping  a  record  of  the  fines 
and  amercements  in  the  sheriff's  courts"  («).  Perhaps  the 
most  concise  definition  we  could  give  would  be  to  say  the 
coroner  is  an  officer  of  the  Crown,  charged  with  the  duty  to 
investigate  and  record,  certain  matters  relating  to  pleas  of 
the  crown. 

Sect  15.  There  were  three  kinds  of  coroners,  viz. :  ( I ) 
Virtute  officii,  (2)  Virtute  cartae  sive  commissionis ;  (3) 
Virtute  electionis  (0). 

Sect.  1 6.  The  coroners  virtute  officii  were  the  Chief 
Justice  of  the  Court  of  King's  Bench  and  his  associate  jus- 
tices. The  Lord  Chief  Justice  was  by  virtue  of  his  office 
Chief  Coroner  of  all  England  (/>)•  He  "may  if  he  pleases 
exercise  the  jurisdiction  of  a  coroner  in  any  part  of  the 
realm" (q).  The  other  justices  of  the  King's  Bench  were 
sovereign  coroners  (r).  We  may  well  imagine  that  the 
office  was  exercised  about  as  often  as  most  of  the  duties  of 
offices  held  ex  officio.  This  conjecture  is  borne  out  by  the 

(&)  Commyns  Digest  Title  Officer  G.  i,  citing  2  Coke's  Institutes 
31,  4  Coke's  Institutes  271. 

(/)  Ante,  Sect.  12. 

(m)  For  a  definition  of  coroner  today  see  Post,  Sect.  66. 

(n)  Gilbert's  Historical  View  of  the  Exchequer  80,  see  6  Viner's 
Abridgment  246-247. 

(0)  2  Male's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  53,  2  Bacon's  Abridgement  424, 

(p)  Sadler's  Case,  4  Coke's  Rep.  57b  (1588)  ;  Berkley's  case,  2 
Siderfin  90,  (1658);  4  Coke's  Institutes,  73;  2  Kale's  Pleas  of  the 
Crown,  53 ;  i  Blackstone's  Commentaries,  346. 

(q)  i  Blackstone's  Commentaries  346  even  within  the  verge  or 
other  franchise;  Wrote  v.  Wigges,  4  Coke's  Reports  46. 

(r)  17  Edward  3,  13  a  Lib.  4  fol.  57,  4  Coke's  Institutes,  73 ;  Sad- 
ler's Case,  4  Coke's  Reports  576  (1588),  and  see  Coke's  PI.  Com.  262. 


22    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

fact  that  there  was  a  separate  coroner  especially  for  the 
King's  Bench  (s).  But  on  one  occasion  certainly  the  Chief 
Justice  of  the  King's  Bench  did  act  as  coroner  (t), 

Finneaux,  C.  J.  is  supposed  to  have  resolved  "that  if  a 
man  be  slain  in  open  rebellion,  the  Chief  Justice  upon  view 
of  the  body  may  make  a  record  thereof  and  send  it  into 
the  King's  Bench,  and  thereupon  the  party  slain  shall  for- 
feit his  lands  and  goods" — "which  may  be  true,"  says  Lord 
Hale  (u),  "as  to  the  goods  but  not  as  to  the  lands  because 
none  can  be  attained  after  death  except  by  act  of  Parlia- 
ment." Lord  Coke  is  of  opinion  that  the  resolution  is  good 
law.  Matthew  Bacon  and  Chief  Justice  Gibson  agree 
with  Finneaux  and  Lord  Coke,  that  the  goods  would  be 
forfeited  and  with  Lord  Hale  that  the  lands  would  not  be 
forfeited  (v)  on  the  principle  that  a  man  killed  in  open 
rebellion  can  under  ordinary  circumstances  forfeit  neither 
lands  nor  goods  because  he  cannot  be  attainted  after  death. 
We  cannot  but  feel  that  the  logic  of  the  situation  is  with 
Lord  Coke.  It  is  difficult  for  us  to  understand  the  nice- 
ties of  the  law  of  forfeiture,  but  it  is  still  more  difficult  to 
understand  upon  what  ground  the  distinction  rests  between 
the  forfeiture  of  lands  and  of  goods  under  the  circum- 
sstanecs.  It  is  certain  a  felo  de  se  forfeited  both  lands  and 
goods  although  he  was  dead.  Granted  the  dead  rebel  can 
make  no  defense  of  his  alleged  rebellion;  that  argument 
applies  with  equal  force  to  both  lands  and  goods,  and  for 
that  matter  neither  can  a  felo  de  se  defend  his  character, 
though  he  has  the  inquest  to  do  that  (^r). 

Sect.     17.  Coroners    virtute    cartae  s'we  commissionis 
were  of  four  kinds  (i)  the  coroner  of  the  verge  (2)  the 

(j)  Rot.  Parl.  Vol.  Ill,  p.  482,  Vol.  VI,  p.  337,  who  also  had  juris- 
diction over  all  deaths  in  the  King's  Bench  Prison. 

(0  In  the  time  of  Henry  VII  cited  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown 
53  in  Sadler's  Case,  4  Coke's  Reports,  57!),  (1588)  in  ex  parte  Schulz,  6 
Wharton  272  (1841)  and  in  Bacon's  Abridgment  Title  Coroners  fol.  I, 
and  see  8  Edward  III  38,  7  Henry  IV  47,  2  Henry  IV  xob. 

(«)  2  Pleas  of  the  Crown  53. 

(v)  Bacon's  Abridgment  Title  Coroners  fol.  i,  ex  parte  Schultz,  6 
Whart.  272  (1841). 

O)  Of  this  inalienable  right  to  have  it  judicially  determined 
whether  or  not  a  man  committeed  suicide  before  he  is  subject  to  the 
stigma  of  being  felo  de  se,  the  local  courts  of  Pennsylvania  have  robbed 


KINDS  OF  CORONERS  IN  ENGLAND  23 

coroner  of  the  admiralty  (3)  other  coroners  appointed  by 
the  King  and  (4)  coroners  of  franchises.  The  two  last 
mentioned  kinds  may  be  considered  as  one  group. 

Sect.  1 8.  From  ancient  times  there  has  been  a  coroner 
of  the  king's  household  (y).  There  was  also  a  coroner 
of  the  queen's  household  (2).  The  coroner  of  the  king's 
household  was  known  as  coroner  of  the  verge,  (a)  he  was 
anciently  appointed  by  the  king's  letters  patent,  but  by  the 
statute  of  33  Henry  VIII,  Chapter  12  (b)  the  appointment 
was  vested  in  the  lord  steward  or  the  lord  great  master  of 
the  king's  house  for  the  time  being  (c).  Anciently  he 
had  power  to  do  all  things  relating  to  the  office  of  coroner 
within  the  verge  exclusive  of  the  coroner  of  the  county 
(d).  He  was  also  sometimes  assigned  to  assay  all  weights 
and  measures  according  to  the  king's  standards  (e) 
throughout  the  verge. 

It  may  not  be  amiss  here  to  explain  the  meaning  of  the 
long  since  forgotten  term  "verge."  The  verge  is  a  movable 
jurisdiction  of  twelve  miles  (/)  in  radius  from  the  place 
where  for  the  time  being  the  king  held  his  court.  It  will 
be  at  once  seen  that  the  verge  was  a  very  indefinite  thing. 
If  the  king  held  his  court  in  Westminster  today  there  was 
the  verge;  if  tomorrow  he  should  visit  Kenilworth  the 
verge  at  once  ceased  to  be  at  Westminster  and  went  with  him 
to  Kenilworth.  The  idea  of  the  verge  is  closely  allied  to  the 
ideas  of  the  king's  peace  and  the  sanctity  of  the  king's 
person.  Wheresoever  the  king  was,  a  certain  sacredness 
existed  which,  for  example,  made  it  treason  to  kill  a  man 
in  the  king's  presence.  This  sanctity  spread  like  a  halo 
around  the  place  where  the  king  was.  His  personal  pres- 
ence caused  great  sanctity.  His  palace  a  less  degree  (//). 

(y)   Britton  23. 
(z)  19  Irish  Law  Times  144. 

(a)  Wrote  v.  Wigges,  4  Coke's  Reports  46  (1592). 
(fr)  3  Statutes  of  the  Realm  845  (1541). 
(c)  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  54. 
(<0  Ibid, 
(e)  Britton  2a. 

(/)  By  13  Richard  II,  c  3,  2  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  62  (1389). 
(//)  By  33  Henry  VIII,  c  12  Sect.  24.    The  coroner  of  the  verge 
has  sole  jurisdiction  over  deaths  which  occur  in  the  King's  Palace. 


24    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

Within  a  radius  of  twelve  miles  from  the  place  where 
his  court  was  held  was  protected  by  his  majesty  and  was 
called  the  verge. 

Anciently  the  coroner  of  the  verge  had  exclusive  right 
to  do  all  things  relating  to  his  office  within  the  verge  (<?). 
But  there  his  privileges  stopped.  The  county  coroner  in- 
deed might  not  meddle  with  offenses  done  within  the  verge 
(A)  but  neither  could  the  coroner  of  the  verge  meddle  with 
offenses  not  done  within  the  verge  (i).  Their  respective 
jurisdictions  were  mutually  exclusive  (&).  If,  therefore, 
a  man  were  killed  within  the  verge  and  before  the  inquest 
was  completed  the  king  removed,  the  inquest  could  not  be 
completed  (/).  The  county  coroner  could  not  intromit, 
for  the  offense  having  been  done  within  the  verge  was  be- 
yond his  jurisdiction  while  the  coroner  of  the  verge  was 
without  authority  to  continue  the  moment  the  verge  was 
removed  from  the  place  where  the  act  was  done.  Sir  Ed- 
ward Coke  is  of  the  opinion  that  in  such  a  case  the  coroner 
of  the  county  might  begin  a  new  inquest  ne  maleficia  reman- 
erint  impunita  (m).  But  Sir  Edward  cites  no  authority  for 
the  proposition  and  Hawkins  tells  us  he  is  mistaken  (»). 

Though  the  occasion  might  not  be  frequent  there 
would  have  been  a  substantial  failure  of  justice  had  the  mat- 
ter not  been  remedied  by  the  articuli  super  cartas  (o}.  Let 
us  not  be  misunderstood  in  saying  there  would  be  a  failure 
of  justice.  The  innocent  might  stand  under  a  suspicion  of 
crime  for  want  of  an  inquest  to  clear  them  (00} .  The 


(g)  Britton  fol.  2a. 

(h)  2  Coke's  Institutes  550,  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  c 
9  Sect.  15. 

(i)  Wrote  v.  Wigges,  4  Coke's  Reports  470,  (1592)  ;  Comyns  Di- 
gest Title  Officer  G.  I. 

(k)  Borough  &  Holcroft's  Case,  2  Leonard,  160  (1579)  ;  Wrote  v. 
Wigges,  4  Coke's  Reports  46  (1592),  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  54- 
55,  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  c  9  Sect.  15. 

(/)  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  c.  9,  Sect.  15. 

(m)  2  Coke's  Institutes,  547;  Wrote  v.  Wigges,  4  Coke's  Reports 
46  (1592). 

(n)  2  Pleas  of  the  Crown  c  9,  Sect.  15,  and  see  2  Coke's  Institutes 
550. 

(0)  Chapter  3,  2  Coke's  Institutes  550,  and  see  Bacon's  Abridgment 
Title  Coroners  (b). 

(00)   19  Irish  Law  Times  144. 


KINDS  OF  CORONERS  IN  ENGLAND  25 

coroner  might  be  unable  tq  secure  to  the  king  his  forfeit- 
ures and  deodands.  The  culprit  might  escape.  But  the 
justices  of  oyer  and  terminer  or  a  justice  of  the  peace  or 
the  grand  jury  might  inquire  (/>)  into  the  death  and  indict 
the  criminal.  But  there  was  danger  in  this  slower  method  of 
investigation,  that  the  criminal  might  escape,  for  it  must  be 
remembered  that  the  coroner  was  a  committing  magis- 
trate. By  articuli  super  cartas  (0)  where  the  offence  was 
committed  in  the  verge  both  the  coroner  of  the  verge  and 
the  coroner  of  the  county  within  which  the  offence  was 
committed  "do  their  duty  as  belongeth  to  their  office"  (g). 
It  was  still  true  that  an  inquisition  taken  in  the  king's 
house  by  a  coroner  of  the  county  where  it  was  for  the  time 
being,  sitting  alone,  was  void  and  would  be  discharged  (r). 
It  was  also  true  that  an  inquisition  taken  before  the  coroner 
of  the  verge  was  void  where  the  fact  did  not  appear  to 
have  been  done  in  the  verge  and  this  was  so  even  though 
the  county  coroner  joined  (s).  Hawkins  says,  it  is  coram 
non  judice  (ss}  as  to  the  coroner  of  the  verge  and  the  rec- 
ord being  entire  it  cannot  be  void  as  to  one  and  good  as  to 
the  other  for  "peradventure  the  jury  was  directed  princi- 
pally by  the  coroner  of  the  king's  house  and  the  witnesses 
examined  and  sworn  by  him"  (f).  If,  therefore,  the  cor- 
oner of  the  verge  joins  the  fact  "must  be  laid  within  the 
verge"  (u). 

Such  is  the  wording  of  the  statute  that  it  is  doubtful 
whether  the  coroner  of  the  verge,  alone,  could  hold  an  in- 
quisition of  a  fact  occurring  within  the  verge.  Lord  Coke 
tells  us  "if  an  offence  be  committed  within  the  verge  both 
coroners  must  sit  and  if  the  coroner  of  the  king's  house 


(/»)  2  Hawkins  Pleas  of  the  Crown  c  9.  Sect.  15;  Wrote  v.  Wigges, 
4  Coke's  Reports  473  (1592). 

(q)  2  Coke's  Institutes  550. 

(r)  Wrote  v.  Wigges,  4  Coke's  Reports  46b  (1592)  ;  Hamlin's  Case 
King's  Bench  1610  Mss.  see  Borough  &  Holcroft's  Case,  2  Leon.  160 
(1579),  and  see  Umfreville's  Lex  Caronatoris  150,  2  Kale's  Pleas  of 
the  Crown  54. 

(s)  2  Coke's  Institutes  550,  Wrote  v.  Wigges.  4  Coke's  Reports 
47a  (1592). 

(ss)  So  does  Coke,  Wrote  v.  Wigges,  4  Coke's  Reports  4;a  (1592). 

(0  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c.  9,  Sect.  16. 

(M)  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  c  9,  Sect.  16. 


26    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

be  absent  the  whole  proceeding  is  void"  (v}.  But  Haw- 
kins says  beyond  doubt  the  coroner  of  the  verge  alone  may 
sit  where  one  is  slain  within  the  verge  (w).  The  conflict 
may  have  arisen  from  Lord  Hale's  remark  that  if  one  be 
slain  within  the  palace  the  coroner  of  the  verge  may  proceed 
alone  under  the  method  that  was  there  prescribed  (#). 
Even  if  this  be  true  it  does  not  follow  that  the  same  law 
applies  where  the  offence  was  committed  within  the  verge 
but  without  the  palace  for  it  must  be  remembered  the  pre- 
cincts of  the  palace  were  more  sacred  than  the  verge  gener- 
ally. 

Where  the  coroner  of  the  verge  and  the  coroner  of  the 
county  joined  in  the  inquisition,  it  was  said  that  if  the 
result  could  not  be  tried  before  the  lord  steward,  process 
should  issue  at  common  law  (y).  If  the  court  removed,  the 
coroner  of  the  county  might  go  on  with  the  inquest  (z). 
Accepting  Hawkins'  reasoning  as  to  why  the  coroner  of  the 
verge  cannot  take  an  inquisition  of  a  fact  committed  without 
the  verge,  above  referred  to,  it  seems  hard  to  reconcile 
the  last  proposition  upon  theory,  though  it  is  self-evident 
that  to  hold  otherwise  would  be  to  annul  the  articuli  super 
cartas.  Peradventure  the  coroner  of  the  verge  did  all  the 
examining  and  swore  all  the  witnesses  up  to  the  time  when 
the  court  removed.  To  be  sure  it  was  not  coram  non 
judice  then,  but  once  the  court  has  removed  the  authority 
of  the  coroner  of  the  verge  is  gone  and  how  can  the  au- 
thority of  a  part  of  the  court  cease  in  the  midst  of  the 
cause  and  the  cause  go  on?  A  more  logical  reading  of 
the  statute  would  seem  to  be  that  both  coroners  were  to 
hold  the  inquest  throughout  jointly,  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
county  coroner  being  extended  so  as  to  permit  him  to  enter 
the  verge  qua  coroner  and  that  of  the  coroner  of  the  verge 
so  as  to  permit  him  to  act  after  the  court  was  gone,  but  that 


(v)  2  Coke's  Institutes,  550;  Wrote  v.  Wigges,  4  Coke's  Reports 
46  (1592). 

(a/)  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  c  9,  Sect.  18. 

(x~)  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  55,  and  see  Statute  33  Henry 
VIII  Cap.  12,  3  Statutes  of  the  Realm  485  (1541). 

(y)  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  54. 

(*)  Wrote  v.  Wigges,  4  Coke's  Reports  4Sb,  463  (1592). 


KINDS  OF  CORONERS  IN  ENGLAND  27 

does  not  seem  to  have  been  the  contemporaneous  interpreta- 
tion of  the  statute  (a). 

Under  the  old  English  system  of  government  there 
was  nothing  to  prevent  a  man  holding  two  offices  so  long  as 
they  were  not  incompatible.  The  same  man  might  be  cor- 
oner both  of  the  verge  and  of  the  county  (&).  Text  writers 
agree  that  where  the  same  man  holds  both  offices  he  may  sit 
alone  to  hold  an  inquest  upon  a  body  killed  within  the  verge 
and  may  continue  to  hold  the  inquest  even  after  the  court  has 
removed  (c).  The  dual  capacity  he  holds  brings  him  within 
articidi  super  cartas  for  both  the  coroner  of  the  verge  and 
the  coroner  of  the  county  are  sitting  though  in  fact  but  one 
man  is  sitting.  In  Wrote  v.  Wigges  (d)  where  the  point  was 
not  necessary  to  the  decision  it  was  resolved  that  an  inquest 
taken  before  one  man  who  held  both  offices  was  sufficient, 
but  when  the  point  was  directly  before  the  King's  Bench 
in  Borough  &  Holcroft?s  case  (*)  in  1579  it  was  not  de- 
cided "for"  it  was  said  "it  is  requisite  that  it  be  tried  by  two 
coroners"  and  in  reply  "though  there  be  but  one  person  yet 
there  are  two  coroners." 

As  we  shall  see  later  (/)  the  coroner  of  the  verge 
returned  his  inquisitions  before  the  lord  high  steward  (#). 

Sect.  19.  The  coroner  of  the  admiralty  was  also  a 
coroner  virtute  cartae  sive  commissionis  (H).  He  was  ap- 
pointed by  the  lord  high  admiral  and  had  sole  jurisdiction 
on  the  high  seas  (i).  The  coroner  of  the  county  had  no 
jurisdiction  of  offences  committed  on  the  open  seas  or 
between  high  and  low  water  mark  when  the  tide  was  in,  but 

(a)  Wrote  v.  Wigges,  4  Coke's  Reports,  45b  (1592). 

(&)  An  instance  where  this  was  done  occurs  in  Wrote  v.  Wigges 
supra. 

(c)  3  Coke's  Institutes,  134;  2  Kale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  55; 
Bacon's  Abridgment  Title  Coroners  (b)  ;  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the 
Crown  c  9,  Sect.  17. 

(</)  4  Coke's  Reports  45b,  463  (1592). 

(e)  2  Leonard,  160. 

(/)  Post,  Sect.  57. 

(y)  28  Henry  VIII,  c.  15,  3  Statutes  of  the  Realm  671  (1536)  ;  33 
Henry  VIII,  c.  12,  Sect.  3;  3  Statutes  of  the  Realm  845  (1541).  and  see 
2  Kale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  54. 

(/»)  Bacon's  Abridgment  Title  Coroners  pi.  2  and  authorities  there 
cited. 

(»)  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  54,  and  only  on  the  high  seas 
at  common  law  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  49,  50. 


28    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

he  had  jurisdiction  over  offences  committed  in 'the  latter 
place  when  the  tide  was  out  (&).  The  question  very  natu- 
rally arises  what  are  the  limits  of  the  high  seas.  Upon  the 
sea  coast  this  question  is  easily  answered  by  saying  high 
water  mark,  when  the  tide  is  in,  low  water  mark  when  it 
is  out.  This  does  not  answer  the  question  completely  for 
we  are  compelled  to  ask,  does  this  rule  extend  to  all  places 
where  the  tide  rises  and  falls  such  as  arms  of  the  sea  or 
great  rivers  ?  We  are  told  on  this  point  "it  is  no  part  of  the 
sea  where  one  may  see  what  is  done  of  the  one  part  of  the 
water  and  the  other  and  see  one  land  and  the  other.  The 
coroner  (meaning  the  county  coroner)  shall  exercise  his 
office  in  this  case"  (/).  The  expression  is  doubtful  and 
has  been  doubtfully  interpreted.  Some  authors  say  and 
some  decisions  hold  that  it  means  that  where  one  can  see 
from  one  side  of  the  stream  or  arm  of  the  sea  to  the  other 
the  water  is  infra  corpus  comitatus  (m).  Others,  however, 
say  that  it  is  only  where  a  person  on  one  side  of  the  water 
may  see  whatever  is  being  done  on  the  other  side  that  the 
county  coroner  has  jurisdiction  (n).  In  Leigh  v.  Hurley 
(o)  Foster,  J.  said.  "If  the  sea  be  not  of  any  county  the 
admiral  hath  jurisdiction  or  els  (sic)  not."  It  is  submitted 
that  this  is  the  proper  test.  It  was  his  brother  Cook,  J.  who 
went  further  to  say  "if  a  man  can  see  from  side  to  side  of 
a  stream  the  admiral  hath  no  jurisdiction." 

The  statute  of  15  Richard  II,  c.  3  (/>)  is  enlightening 
on  this  point;  it  enacts  that  "of  death  of  man  and  may- 
hem in  great  ships  hovering  in  the  main  stream  in  great 
rivers  below  the  bridges  near  to  the  sea  the  admiral  shall 
have  jurisdiction"  (q).  If  this  be  a  correct  translation  of  the 


(£)  3  Coke's  Institutes  115,  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  c  9 
Sect.  14.  Sir  Henry  Constable's  Case,  5  Coke's  Reports  107  (1601). 

(/)  8  Edward  II,  Coron.  399. 

(m)  Leigh  v.  Burley,  Owen  122  (1610)  ;  Anonymous,  Moore  891-2; 
2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  54;  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown, 
51;  Hale's  Summary  151. 

(n)  Fitzherbert's  Abridgment  Coroners,  399;  4  Coke's  Institutes 
140;  2  Rolle's  Abridgment  179. 

(0)  Owen  122  (1610). 

(/>)  2  Statutes  of  the  Realm  78  (1391)- 

(q)  And  see  8  Edward  II,  Coron.,  399;  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown 
15-16-54. 


KINDS  OF  CORONERS  IN  ENGLAND  29 

statute  Justice  Cook  was  wrong  when  he  said,  the  admiral 
had  no  juridiction  where  one  may  see  from  side  to  side  of 
a  stream.  But  the  worthy  justice  has  forestalled  criticism 
by  saying  (r) ;  "The  statute  is  misprinted,  the  admiral 
does  not  have  jurisdiction  to  the  bridges;  the  words  so 
translated  refer  to  points  or  land's  ends"  (rr).  If  this 
be  true  and  the  admiral  only  has  jurisdiction  beyond  the 
"points"  he  has  no  jurisdiction  in  rivers  at  all  and  the  stat- 
ute is  self -contradictory.  Hale  points  out  that  the  act  only 
applies  to  arms  of  the  sea,  not  to  mere  creeks  and  to  great 
ships,  not  to  small  ones  (s),  and  then  escapes  from  the 
principal  difficulty  by  saying  "on  arms  of  the  sea,  within  the 
body  of  the  county  the  admiral  has  jurisdiction,  but  not 
exclusive  jurisdiction";  nevertheless  the  coroner  of  the 
county  may  take  the  inquisitions  on  the  great  rivers  (f). 

Rex  v.  Solgard  (u)  though  a  later  case  than  the  period 
we  are  considering,  throws  a  little  light  on  this  point.  A 
sailor  on  board  one  of  his  majesty's  men-of-war  in  the  har- 
bor of  Portsmounth  hanged  himself  in  his  cabin.  The  coroner 
of  Hants  being  notified  of  the  fact  called  at  the  ship  to 
take  an  inquisition.  The  captain,  Solgard,  refused  to  al- 
low him  to  come  on  board  of  the  ship.  An  information 
was  brought  against  Solgard  and  it  was  held  that  the  ad- 
miralty coroner  would  have  had  at  best  but  concurrent  jur- 
isdiction had  he  been  present;  not  being  present,  the  jur- 
isdiction of  the  county  coronor  attached  when  he  came  to 
the  ship  to  take  the  inquest;  for  public  justice  was  at 
stake.  The  court,  however,  did  not  fine  and  imprison  the 
captain  but  directed  him  not  to  obstruct  the  coroner.  He 
had  acted  in  good  faith  under  his  interpretation  of  the  law 
(v)  and  he  was  an  officer  of  the  king. 

In  Atwood's  case  in  the  King's  Bench  in  1676  («/) 


(r)  Leigh  v.  Burley,  Owen  122  (1610). 

(rr)  The  Rotuli  Parl.  N.  U.  30  says  "pontz"  old  and  corrupted 
forms  and  abridgments  read  "pointes"  or  "portes." 

(s)  2  Kale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  15-16-54- 

(/)  Ibid. 

(M)  Andrews  281  s.  c.  2  Strange  1097  (1738). 

(v)  See  Leigh  v.  Burley,  Owen  122  (1610)  ;  Bracton  121,  Fleta 
Lib.  i,  25. 

(w»)  Mss.  referred  to  in  Umfreville's  Lex.  Coronotoris  144. 


30    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

it  appeared  that  Atwood,  a  broker,  became  financially  in- 
volved and  suddenly  disappeared.  Some  naval  men  picked 
up  his  body  in  the  Thames  below  St.  Catharines.  The  ad- 
miralty coroner  held  an  inquest  upon  the  body  and  the  jury 
found  that  the  deceased  had  been  drowned  by  accident. 
Thereupon  the  body  was  buried.  The  coroner  of  an  ad- 
joining county  requested  the  admiralty  coroner  to  deliver  up 
the  body  to  him  that  he  might  hold  an  inquest,  but  the  ad- 
miralty coroner  refused.  For  this  refusal  the  county  coroner 
brought  a  complaint  to  the  King's  Bench.  Hale,  C.  J.  up- 
held the  admiral's  jurisdiction  saying,  that  in  great  rivers  he, 
beyond  doubt,  had  jurisdiction  if  he  got  the  body  first.  Inti- 
mating that  had  the  county  coroner  first  secured  the  body 
the  admiral  would  have  been  without  jurisdiction.  With 
submission  to  authority  the  rule  thus  suggested  seems  wrong 
on  principle.  The  jurisdiction  ought  to  be  mutually  ex- 
clusive. Either  the  county  coroner  should  have  jurisdic- 
tion or  the  coroner  of  the  admiralty,  but  not  both.  It  should 
not  be  reduced  to  an  indecent  scramble  to  secure  the  dead 
man's  body. 

The  statute  of  Richard  II,  conferring  jurisdiction  on 
the  admiralty  coroner  to  the  bridges  (x}>  should  it  seems 
exclude  the  jurisdiction  of  the  county  coroner.  The  two 
decided  cases  are  in  perfect  harmony  with  this  theory  for 
in  Rex  v.  Solgard  (y}  the  county  coroner  was  held  to  have 
jurisdiction  over  a  ship  lying  in  Portsmouth  harbor  (2)  and 
in  Atwood's  case  (a)  where  the  jurisdiction  of  the  admiralty 
was  upheld,  the  body  was  found  below  the  bridges  at  St. 
Catherine's. 

But  the  authority  against  the  exclusiveness  of  juris- 
diction is  so  great  that  it  may  be  taken  as  pretty  well  set- 
tled that  on  great  rivers  and  arms  of  the  sea  the  coroner  of 
the  admiralty  has  concurrent  jurisdiction  with  the  county 
coroner  (aa). 

(*•)  If  the  words  used  do  refer  to  bridges. 

(y)  Supra. 

(2)  Rex  v.  Solgard  is  a  little  hard  to  reconcile,  Portsmouth  Harbor 
is  of  considerable  size  and  not  wholly  land  locked. 

(a)  Supra. 

(ao)  Staundeford  presents  an  early  idea  of  the  statute  saying 
(Pleas  of  the  Crown  50-51)  that  the  jurisdiction  is  concurrent. 


KINDS  OF  CORONERS  IN  ENGLAND  31 

The  coroner  of  the  admiralty  returned  inquisitions 
taken  before  him  to  the  commissioners  in  admiralty  (&). 

The  coroner  of  the  admiralty  by  virtue  of  his  letters 
patent  might  appoint  deputies  (c)  and  it  is  to  be  noted  he 
usually  acted  by  deputy. 

Sect.  20.  "Ordinarily"  says  Lord  Hale  (</)  speaking 
of  coroners  virtute  cartate  sive  commissionis  "made  by  grant 
or  commission,  without  election,  coroners  of  particular 
lords"  or  made  by  particular  lords.  The  statute  of  28  Ed- 
ward III  (e)  which  confirms  the  power  of  electing  coroners 
to  the  counties  saves  the  rights  of  the  king  and  the  lords 
of  particular  franchises.  The  king  himself  had  the  power 
to  appoint  coroners  in  certain  franchises  (/)  :  among  others 
the  Bishop  of  Ely  by  Charter  of  Henry  VII  has  the  power 
to  appoint  coroners  for  the  liberties  of  Ely,  so  the  wardens 
of  the  Stannaries.  Queen  Catharine  was  granted  the  hun- 
dred of  Colridge  by  the  King  (g)  with  power  to  "make" 
coroners  (/&).  Others  have  the  power  to  be  coroners  or 
are  coroners.  But  the  office  being  a  judicial  one  (i)  "None 
can  prescribe  to  make  coroners"  (£).  We  are  told  (/)  that 
the  Lord  Mayor  of  London  is  ex  officio  coroner  of  London 
(w). 

Sect.  21.  During  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  cen- 
turies however  London  did  not  have  a  right  to  elect  its 
coroner.  The  functions  of  that  office  were  exercised  by 
the  chamberlain  and  the  sheriffs.  Some  say  the  offices 
of  mayor,  chamberlain  and  coroner  were  all  held  by  the  same 


(6)  28  Henry  VIII,  Chap.  15;  3  Statutes  of  the  Realm  671  (1536)  ; 
33  Henry  VIII,  Chap.  12,  Sect.  3;  3  Statutes  of  the  Realm  845  (1541), 
and  see  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  54. 

(c)  2  Burn's  Justices  (Edition  of  1845)  29;  Jervis  on  Coroners  5 
and  6. 

(rf)  2  Pleas  of  the  Crown  53. 

(e)  Ubi  infra.    I  Statutes  of  the  Realm  345  (1354). 

(/)  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  53-54,  Coke  upon  Littleton  114. 

(g)  35  Henry  VIII. 

(h)  Ameredith's  Case,  9  Coke's  Reports  2gb  (1598). 

(«)  See  Post,  Sect.  41. 

(k)  Coke  upon  Littleton  1143. 

(/)   Bacon's  Abridgment  Tit.  Coroners  pi.  2. 

(m)  But  the  Mayor  of  London  though  Coroner,  does  not  pro- 
nounce the  sentences  of  outlawry;  the  Recorder  does  that,  City  of 
London's  Case,  8  Coke's  Reports  i2ia  (1610)  ;  see  Post,  Sect.  38. 


person  (n).  This  view  is  not  tenable,  for  the  office  of 
mayor  and  chamberlain  were  usually  separate  (0).  But  the 
chamberlain  was  ex  officio  coroner ;  at  all  events,  during  the 
reigns  of  Edward  I  and  Edward  II  both  offices  were  held 
by  the  king's  butler.  The  duties  of  coroner  were  usually 
performed  by  his  deputies,  who  were  known  as  sub-coroners. 
"Et  nota"  says  a  record  of  14  Edward  II  "quod  botellarius 
donrini  regis  et  camerarius  domini  regis  et  conorator  idem 
sunt"  (/>).  In  the  fifty-first  year  of  Edward  III  (q)  and 
again  in  the  first  year  of  Richard  II  (r)  the  commons  of 
London  complained  to  the  king  of  their  grievances  in  this 
regard,  saying  public  justice  was  neglected  and  the  office 
made  the  means  of  private  gain  (s)  but  the  king  refused 
to  redress  them,  claiming  his  ancient  rights  in  the  matter. 
But  in  1478  they  were  granted  the  right  to  elect  a  coroner 
distinct  from  the  Chief  Butler's  coroner  (f). 

Sect.  22.  It  is  to  be  noted  in  this  connection  that  this 
kind  of  coroner  (tt)  had  no  right  to  delegate  his  authority 
(w)  even  though  he  claimed  the  right  by  prescription  (v). 
Their  inquisitions  were  void  unless  they  styled  themselves 
"coroner"  therein  (w). 

Sect.  23.  Coroners  virtute  electionis  were  those  who 
by  the  statute  of  Westminster  I,  chapter  10  (;r)  and  the 


(n)  Reiley's  Memorials  3,  Lofties  London  29,  Falling's  Laws  of 
London  19-128. 

(0)  Reiley's  Memorials  47-55-149-169-183,  etc.  Liber  Albus  86-96 
Liber  Cust.  239-246.  The  same  person  was  both  Mayor  and  Chamber- 
lain in  4-6  Edward  I,  Reiley's  Memorials  3-17  Liber  Cust.  239-291,  and 
John  de  Wengrave  in  10  and  n  Edward  II  was  both  Mayor  and 
Coroner  (or  sub-coroner)  Liber  Cust.  245-6. 

(/»)  Liber  Cust.  296. 

(«)  1376. 

(r)  1377- 

(s )  Graft  evidently  is  no  new  disease. 

(/)  For  a  history  of  these  struggles  of  London  see  Gross's  Intro- 
duction to  Select  Coroners  Rolls,  XXIII. 

(tt)  Coroners  virtute  cartae  sive  commissionis. 

(u)  Jervis  on  Coroners  5-6,  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  51; 
except  the  admiralty  coroner,  who  by  virtue  of  his  letters  patent  ap- 
pointed deputies,  2  Burn's  Justices  29  (Edition  of  1845). 

(v )  Jervis  on  Coroners  5-6. 

(«/)  22  Edward  IV  f  12. 

(x)  i  Statutes  of  the  Realm  40  (1275),  see  2  Coke's  Institutes,  174; 
2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  55;  Bacon's  Abridgment  Tit.  Coroners 
Pi.  3- 


KINDS  OF  CORONERS  IN  ENGLAND  33 

statute  of  28  Edward  III,  chapter  6  (y)  were  eligible  by 
the  county  (yy)  in  the  full  county  court  (2}  by  virtue  of 
the  King's  writ  de  coronatore  eligendo  (sz}  and  sworn  by 
the  sheriff  to  the  due  execution  of  their  office  (a).  There 
were  usually  four  such  coroners  in  each  county  (&),  but 
sometimes  there  were  six  and  sometimes  less  than  four  (c}. 
The  number  of  coroners  belonging  in  any  county  was  really 
indeterminate  for  the  chancery  might  at  any  time  issue  a 
writ  de  coronatore  eligendo  to  elect  an  additional  coroner 
I*)'. 

Professor  Gross  tells  us  (e)  that  during  the  thirteenth 
and  fourteenth  centuries  there  were  four  coroners  in  every 
county  (/).  Each  of  them  was  assisted  by  a  deputy  (cler- 
cus)  who  sometimes  held  the  inquests  (#).  They  seem  usu- 
ally to  have  been  elected  for  the  county  at  large,  there  being 


(y)  i  Statutes  of  the  Realm  346  (1354),  Bacon's  Abridgment  Tit. 
Coroners  pi.  3,  and  see  Post,  Sect.  29,  note  (c). 

(yy)  Britton  2a. 

(2)  Britton  2a,  28  Edward  III  c  6,  I  Statutes  of  the  Realm  346 
(1354),  see  Post.  Sect.  29,  note  (c). 

(zz)  Post,  Sect.  29. 

(a)  F.  N.  B.  163;  2  Kale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  55;  Britton  Chapt. 

I,  Sect.  4, 

(&)  Pleas  of  Gloucester  97,  Rot.  Claus,  Vol.  I,  pp.  402,  622,  648. 
Northumberland  Rolls,  372;,  Fitzherbert  Natura  Brevium,  163  L;  4 
Coke's  Institutes,  271 ;  i  Blackstone's  Commentaries  346. 

(c)  Northumberland  Rolls  68,  where  there  were  three.  Two  are 
mentioned  Rot.  Claus,  Vol.  II,  p.  67;  Devon  Abb.  Placit,  55.  Generally 
it  might  be  said  in  Wales  there  were  two,  in  England  generally  four 
in  the  counties  palatine  in  the  north  of  England,  six.  By  the  Statute 
of  34  and  35  Henry  VIII,  cap.  26  in  Wales  and  Chester  there  were 
two  coroners,  4  Coke's  Institute,  271 ;  Huntingdon,  little  as  it  is,  has 
five  coroners  (Chalmers  Local  Government  96)  ;  Dorsetshire  has 
eleven  (speech  of  Lord  F.  Harvey  1876;  Hansard,  Vol.  230,  p.  1301  cited 
in  Chalmers  Local  Government,  p.  96). 

(rf)  Jervis  on  Coroners  6  and  7. 

(*)  Introduction  to  Select  Coroners  Rolls,  XX. 

(/)   PI.  of  Gl.  97  Rot.  Claus.  Vol.  I,  402-622-648  cf.  ibid;  463-506; 

II,  91-105-119-126;  Bracton  II,  430;  Salt.  Soc.  IV,  73-208-215;  V,  121; 
VI,  Pt.  i,  256,  XII,  170  Northumb.  Rolls,  372.    Cf.  ibid,  68  where  only 
three   coroners   are   mentioned.     In   some   cases   there   were   only  two 
Rot.  Claus.  II,  67  Devon  Abb.  Placit,  55,  Leicester  cf.  Bracton  II,  430. 

(g)  The  "Clercus"  referred  to  in  the  articles  of  1194,  Sel.  Char. 
260  was  probably  an  ecclesiastic  who  acted  as  clerk  or  scribe.  Deputies 
or  clerci  are  often  mentioned  under  Henry  III  and  his  successors 
Bracton  II,  588;  Britton  i  54,  Fleta  fol.  20,  Rot.  Hund.  i,  3,  112,  130  Plac. 
Quo.  War.  309,  421 ;  Salt.  Soc.  IV,  215,  VI,  PT.  i  257,  Britton  1-7  says 
that  it  was  unlawful  for  the  coroner  to  substitute  another  in  his  place, 
cf.  Statutes  i  211. 


34    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

no  division  of  the  county  into  coroners'  districts  (h},  "cor- 
oners of  certain  hundreds  ridings  and  rapes  are,  however, 
occasionally  mentioned"  (i). 

The  writ  of  election  and  its  effect  and  execution  will 
be  discussed  in  another  chapter  (&)•  The  duties,  rights, 
privileges  and  liabilities  of  these  coroners  will  also  be  con- 
sidered later  on  (/).  Looking  at  the  subject  of  coroners 
generally  it  may  be  taken  for  granted  that  the  discussion  ap- 
plies to  all  coroners.  Wherever  there  is  a  difference  between 
the  duties  of  any  particular  kind  of  coroner  and  those  of 
the  others  that  fact  will  be  noted. 

Sect.  24.  It  has  been  said  that  coroners  virtute  elec- 
tionis  were  officers  of  the  king;  it  is  to  be  noted,  however, 
that  they  were  elected  by  their  county  (w).  They  derived 
their  authority  by  virtue  of  their  election,  not  by  virtue  of  the 
king's  commission,  and  therefore  their  office  did  not  de- 
termine on  the  demise  of  the  king  (n)  as  does  that  of  the 
sheriff.  Their  jurisdiction  was  limited  to  the  county  for 
which  they  were  elected  (0).  The  incomplete  ideas  of  our 
forefathers  did  not  extend  beyond  the  idea,  for  example, 
that  if  a  man  be  murdered,  the  murder  must  take  place  at 
some  spot.  Therefore,  the  place  where  the  murder  was  done 
necessarily  being  within  the  jurisdiction  of  some  coroner, 
the  coroner  of  the  place  where  the  murder  was  committed 
should  take  cognizance  of  the  offence.  But  of  course  the 
question  arose  early  as  to  who  had  jurisdiction  where  the 
stroke  was  given  in  one  county  and  the  man  died  in  another. 
It  was  doubtful  whether  the  coroner  of  either  county  could 


(/»)  For  example  the  coroners  of  Bedfordshire  served  in  various 
hundreds,  pp.  1-38;  in  Henry  Ill's  time  Adam  Baret  was  coroner  "per 
totam  comitatum,"  Northumb.  Rolls,  68. 

(t)  Sel.  Cor.  Rolls  III,  Rot.  Hund.  i,  75-371,  386  II  207  Memorials 
of  Rippn.  I  56  Roll  64  Mem.  14  Rotulus  Willelmy  Skillet  Coronatoris 
domini  rcgis  in  partibus  Holland. 

(fc)  Chapter  IV,  Sect.  29. 

(/)  Chapter  V. 

(m)   See  Post,  Sect.  29. 

(n)  2  Coke's  Institutes,  175;  4  Coke's  Institutes,  271;  2  Kale's 
Pleas  of  the  Crown,  55 ;  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  c  9,  Sect.  5 ; 
Tombes  v.  Etherington  i  Levinz.  120  (1663)  ;  Resolutions  at  Ser- 
geants Inn;  Dyer  165  (1558)  and  Post,  Sect.  29,  note  (x)  contra 
Staundeford  c  51. 

(o)  Jervis  on  Coroners  66,  see  Mirror  capt,  13  of  Liber  I. 


KINDS  OF  CORONERS  IN  ENGLAND  35 

be  said  to  have  jurisdiction,  for  no  murder  was  committed 
in  the  county  where  the  stroke  was  given,  for  it  lacked  the 
essential  element  of  death.  No  man  died  of  the  stroke  in 
that  county;  but  whereas  a  man  died  in  the  other  county  it 
was  no  murder  there,  for  he  did  not  die  of  a  wound  given 
in  that  county.  Yet  one  case  is  reported  (/>)  wherein  a 
man  was  wounded  in  Bedford  and  went  to  Huntingdon  and 
died  there;  the  respective  coroners  held  inquests  in  both 
counties. 

A  careful  consideration  of  the  true  function  of  the 
coroner's  office  (q)  leads  almost  inevitably  to  the  conclusion 
that  no  such  conflict  should  ever  have  existed.  The  cor- 
oners duty  being  to  inquire  into  the  surrounding  circum- 
stances where  one  is  found  suddenly  dead  it  seems  clear  on 
principle  that  the  coroner  of  the  county  where  a  man  is 
found  dead  had  jurisdiction  to  inquire  (qq}.  But  while 
this  may  seem  clear  from  the  viewpoint  of  the  twentieth 
century  it  might  have  been  by  no  means  as  clear  when  the 
office  of  coroner  was  emerging  from  its  ancient  function  of 
judge.  The  necessity  was  then  apparent  that  the  judge 
should  have  jurisdiction  of  the  crime  and  that  unless  the 
whole  crime  was  committed  in  his  county  he  could  have  no 
jurisdiction  at  all  for  no  part  of  the  crime  could  be  consid- 
ered the  crime  itself  (r}.  Besides  it  is  to  be  remembered  that 
the  inquisition  was  an  indictment  and  must  therefore  lay 
a  crime  in  some  county.  To  escape  these  difficulties  it  was 
considered  necessary  to  remove  the  body  into  the  county 
where  the  deceased  was  hurt  (s).  It  is  doubtful,  however, 
if  this  was  ever  actually  done.  It  is  difficult  to  see  more- 
over how  such  a  move  helped  matters.  The  presence  of 
the  body  did  not  remove  the  fact  that  the  man  died  out- 
side of  the  county.  Besides  no  offence  was  perpetrated  in 
the  county  where  the  stroke  was  given  and  coroners  had 

(/»)   Selden  Society  II. 

(q)  See  Post,  Chapt.  V. 

(qq)  The  old  idea  seems  to  overlook  the  true  question  involved  and 
to  confuse  the  duty  of  the  coroner  to  inquire  into  sudden  deaths  with 
his  duty  to  record  the  indictment  of  the  murdered  if  the  jury  found  a 
murder  had  been  committed. 

(r)  Jervis  on  Coroners,  39;  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  66. 

(s)  6  Henry  VII  ica,  and  see  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  66. 


36    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

jurisdiction  only  of  offences  committed  within  their  re- 
spective counties  (*)•  It  required  a  statute  to  clear  the 
matter  of  doubt.  The  act  of  2  and  3  Edward  VI,  chapter 
24,  Sect.  2  (w)  provided  that  where  a  man  was  stricken  in 
one  county  and  died  in  another  the  culprit  should  be  in- 
dicted and  tried  in  the  county  where  the  victim  died  (v). 

While  this  act  does  not  cover  cases  of  misadventure  it 
was  intended  to  cover  the  whole  ground  where  the  deceased 
was  feloniously  destroyed.  It  does  not  cover  the  case  where 
one  is  stricken  or  poisoned  on  the  high  seas  and  dies  on 
land.  Under  such  circumstances  it  was  probably  always 
doubtful  whether  either  coroner  could  be  said  to  have  jur- 
isdiction (w).  Moreover,  as  already  remarked,  the  act 
has  no  application  to  cases  of  misadventure,  so  that  where 
a  man  was  so  hurt  in  one  county  and  died  in  another  there 
could  be  no  inquest  (.*•). 

Of  course  viewing  the  office  of  coroner  in  the  ancient 
light  there  was  no  doubt  but  that  if  a  man  was  killed  in  the 
county  of  A  and  his  body  removed  to  the  county  of  B  it 
should  be  taken  back  to  the  county  of  A  (3;),  where  alone  the 
inquest  must  be  held.  This  strangely  enough  leaves  the 
coroner  of  the  county  where  the  body  is  found  wholly  with- 
out jurisdiction.  In  this  connection  it  is  worth  while  to 
refer  to  the  recent  case  of  Pickett  v.  Erie  County,  19  W. 
N.  C.  60  (1883)  as  a  strange  contrast  to  this  ancient  rule 

M- 


(0  See  supra. 

(u)  4  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  page  69  (1548). 
(v)  See  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  66. 
(«;)  Jervis  on  Coroners  39. 
(*•)  4  Justices  of  the  Peace  (English)  519-536. 
(y)  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  66. 

(2)  For  a  fuller  discussion  of  Pickett  v.  Erie  County  and  its  re- 
lation to  the  old  rule  see  Post,  Sect.  70. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  STATUTE  DE  OFFICIO  CORONATORE. 

Sect.  25.  Perhaps  we  have  gone  too  far  into  the  dif- 
ferent kinds  of  coroners  without  some  explanation  of  their 
duties  and  functions.  It  is  difficult,  however,  to  take  the 
subject  up  from  any  point  of  view  without  meeting  con- 
tinual references  to  other  parts,  which,  to  follow  out,  would 
make  the  discussion  of  the  subject  illogical  as  the  Thous- 
and-and-one  Nights.  We  are  now  arrived  at  the  point,  how- 
ever, where  it  is  no  digression  to  consider  the  duties,  func- 
tions and  liabilities  of  the  coroner.  We  have  already  seen 
the  rise  and  traced  the  development  of  the  office  to  the 
beginning  of  the  reign  of  Edward  I,  or  the  close  of  the  reign 
of  Henry  III  (a).  At  this  point  our  history  takes  on  a  very 
definite  shape.  Two  documents  present  themselves  for  our 
consideration,  both  dealing  with  coroners  in  the  most  mi- 
nute way.  The  first  of  these  is  Bracton's  treatise,  the  second 
the  so-called  statute  de  officio  coronatore. 

Sect.  26.  Before  taking  up  the  consideration  of  these 
two  important  authorities  it  would  be  well  to  look  for  a 
moment  at  the  statute  of  Westminster  I,  chapter  ten  (&). 
That  statute  enacts : 

"And  for  as  much  as  mean  persons  and  indiscreet 
now  of  late  are  commonly  chosen  to  the  office  of  coroners, 
where  it  is  requisite  that  persons,  honest,  lawful  and  wise 
should  occupy  such  office.  It  is  provided  that  among  all 
shires  sufficient  men  shall  be  chosen  to  be  coroners  of  the 
most  wise  and  discreet  knights,  which  know,  will  and  may 
best  attend  upon  such  offices  and  which  lawfully  shall  at- 
tach and  present  Pleas  of  the  Crown  and  that  sheriffs  shall 
have  counter  rolls  with  the  coroners  as  well  of  Appeals  as 
of  Enquests,  of  attachments  or  of  other  things,  which  to 
that  office  belong  and  that  no  coroner  demand  nor  take 
anything  of  any  men  to  do  his  office  upon  pain  of  great 


(a)  See  ante,  Sects.  I  and  13. 

(&)  2  Statutes  of  the  Realm  40  (1275). 

(37) 


38    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

forfeiture  to  the  king"  (c).  There  is  not  the  least  doubt 
that  this  statute  is  authentic,  but  its  provisions  are  meagre 
to  say  the  least.  Perhaps  these  most  loyal  knights  were 
wise  enough  to  desire  some  instructions  as  to  how  their 
office  was  to  be  executed.  Bracton's  treatise  may  have 
been  then  in  circulation,  but  it  does  not  seem  probable  it 
was  in  very  general  circulation;  besides  it  was  written  in 
Latin,  which  few  at  that  time  could  read.  Perhaps  it  was 
felt  that  there  was  a  need  for  the  issuance  of  instructions 
to  coroners  throughout  the  realm.  Whatever  was  the  case, 
it  is  highly  probable  that  in  the  following  year  the  royal 
government  issued  instructions  to  coroners. 

When  we  read  these  instructions  in  connection  with 
Bracton's  treatise  we  find  the  two  almost  identical.  The 
instructions  are  almost  a  transcript  from  Bracton  (d). 
The  only  things  considered  in  the  instructions  omitted  from 
Bracton  are  the  valuation  of  wrecks  and  the  duty  to  follow 
the  hue  and  cry  both  of  which  are  taken  from  the  statute 
of  Westminster  I  (d).  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that 
Professor  Gross  should  say  that  the  so-called  statute  of 
fourth  Edward  I  is  supposed  to  be  a  transcript  from  Brac- 
ton, slightly  altered  (e).  The  instructions  were,  however, 
printed  as  the  statute  of  fourth  Edward  I  in  the  last  edi- 
tion of  statutes  of  the  realm  (/).  It  is,  therefore,  necessary 
that  we  should  be  very  careful  in  attacking  their  authen- 
ticity. 

Sect.  27.  Some  authors  are  of  the  opinion  that  Brac- 
ton copied  his  treatise  from  the  statute.  Were  this  a 
plausible  theory  it  would  reconcile  the  mind  to  the  verbal 
identity  of  the  two  instruments.  But  as  masses  were  said 
for  the  soul  of  one  Henricus  de  Bracton  (/)  during  the 
reign  of  Henry  III,  it  is  probable  that  they  were  for  the 
great  lawyer  who  had  died  before  Edward  I  came  to  the 
throne.  It  seems  likely,  therefore,  if  any  copying  was  done 


(c)  Statute  of  Westminster  I  (3  Edward  I)  c  10,  see  2  Hale's  P. 
C.  58.    This  is  said  by  Lord  Coke  to  be  in  affirmance  of  the  Common 
Law  2  Institutes  176-210. 

(d)  i  Stephens  Criminal  Law  217. 

(e)  Gross's  Introduction  to  Select  Coroners  Rolls,  XXV  and  notes. 
(/)   Sir  Travis  Twiss  Introduction  to  Brancton  LXI. 


THE  STATUTE  DE  OFFICIO  CORONATORE  39 

it  was  the  so-called  statute  which  was  copied  from  the 
treatise.  The  most  important  evidence  upon  the  subject 
is  the  fact  that  neither  Fleta  nor  Britton  speak  of  "de  officio 
coronatore"  nor  is  it  mentioned  by  later  statutes.  It  seems 
impossible  therefore  to  escape  the  conclusion  of  Sir  Travis 
Twiss  in  his  introduction  to  the  second  volume  of  Bracton. 
He  says  he  is  disposed  to  agree  with  the  Hon.  Daines  Bar- 
rington  in  regarding  the  document  "de  officio  coronatore" 
as  a  body  of  instructions  for  coroners  and  not  properly 
speaking  a  constitution.  "It  is  not  unlikely  that  the  instruc- 
tions were  drawn  up  in  pursuance  of  the  statute  of  West- 
minster the  first  chapter  ten  (3  Edward  I)"  (#).  Even  if 
this  be  the  case  the  statute  (/i)  is  no  less  instructive  as  to 
coroners. 

It  provides:  "These  things  are  to  be  inquired  by  the 
coroners  of  the  lord  the  king.  First,  when  the  coroners 
of  the  lord  the  king  have  a  command  from  the  king's 
bailiffs,  (t)  or  from  the  good  men  of  the  country,  to  go 
where  any  are  slain  or  suddenly  dead  (&)  or  wounded, 
or  where  houses  are  broken  (/)or  to  a  place  where  it  is 
said  that  treasure  is  found  (m)  they  ought  forthwith  to  go, 
and  to  command  four  of  the  next  towns  (n)  or  five,  or  six, 
to  be  before  them  in  such  a  place;  and  when  they  shall  be 
come  thither,  the  coroners  ought  upon  the  oath  (0)  of  them 
to  make  inquiry  in  this  manner,  to  wit,  if  it  be  of  a  person 
slain,  (/>)  it  is  first  to  be  inquired  where  he  was  slain;  to 
wit,  whether  it  were  in  a  field,  or  in  a  house  or  at  any 
wrestling,  or  at  a  tavern,  or  in  any  company,  and  whether 
any  and  who  were  there.  In  like  manner,  it  is  to  be  in- 

(g)  p.  LXI.  They  were  first  printed  as  a  part  of  the  Statute  of  3 
Edward  I,  Chapter  10. 

(h)  In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  instructions  are  printed  in  the 
last  edition  of  Statutes  of  the  Realm  they  may  properly  be  called  a 
statute. 

(»')  The  coroner  must  be  sent  for.  It  is  no  part  of  his  duty  to 
interfere  unless  requested,  see  Post,  Sect.  34. 

(k)  As  to  the  meaning  of  this  clause  see  Post,  Sect.  47,  and  Part 
II.  Chapter  VI. 

(/)   See  Post,  Sect.  35. 

(n)  These  composed  the  jury,  and  the  witnesses,  too,  see  Post, 
Sects.,  50-51-52. 

(o)  See  Post,  Sects,  50-51-52-53- 

(/>)  See  Post,  Sect.  48. 


40    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

quired  whether  any  and  what  persons  are  culpable  either  of 
the  fact  or  of  the  force,  and  who  were  present,  men  or  women 
of  what  age  soever  they  be  so  that  they  can  speak  and  have 
any  discretion.  And  how  many  soever  shall  be  culpable  by 
inquisition  in  any  of  the  manners  aforesaid,  shall  be  taken 
and  delivered  to  the  sheriff  and  committed  to  jail  (#).  And 
such  as  be  found  who  are  not  culpable,  shall  be  at- 
tached until  the  coming  of  the  justices  (r),  and  the  names 
of  all  of  them  shall  be  written  in  the  coroner's  rolls  (s). 
But  if  any  such  man  be  slain  in  the  fields,  or  in  the  woods, 
and  be  found  there,  it  is  first  to  be  seen  whether  he  were 
slain  there  or  not;  if  he  were  brought  thither,  let  them 
trace  the  steps,  if  he  possibly  can,  of  those  who  brought 
the  body  thither,  whether  horses  brought  it  or  a  cart,  if 
perchance  it  were  brought  by  horse  or  Cart.  Let  it  be  in- 
quired also  whether  the  person  slain  were  known,  or  were 
a  stranger  and  where  he  lodged  the  night  before.  But  if 
any  such  be  slain,  of  whose  murder  any  be  found  culpable, 
let  the  coroners  immediately  go  to  their  houses,  and  inquire 
what  chattels,  they  have  (f)  and  what  corn  they  have  in 
their  grange;  and  if  he  be  a  freeman,  what  land  he  hath  and 
what  is  the  annual  value  of  it,  and  what  corn  he  hath  in 
the  ground,  and  when  they  have  thus  inquired  of  every- 
thing, they  shall  cause  the  land,  corn,  and  chattels  to  be  ap- 
praised, as  if  they  were  to  be  immediately  sold,  and  they 
shall  be  delivered  to  the  whole  township  to  answer  before 
the  justice  for  the  same;  in  like  manner  of  the  freehold,  how 
much  it  is  worth  yearly  over  and  above  the  service  due  to 
the  lords  of  the  fee,  and  let  the  land  remain  in  the  hands  of 
the  lord  the  king  until  the  lords  of  the  fee  shall  have  made 
fine  for  it.  These  things  being  inquired,  the  bodies  of  the 
persons  dead  or  slain  shall  be  forthwith  buried  (z/). 

"In  like  manner  it  is  to  be  inquired  of  them  that  are 

(9)  The  coroner  was  a  committing  magistrate,  Post,  Sect.  42. 

(r)  All  witnesses  and  the  first  finders  were  to  be  attached  to  the 
coming  of  the  justices,  Post,  Sects.,  34-40-42.  Fleta  Lib.  I  Cap.  25,  Sec. 
4- 

(s)  As  to  the  Coroners  Rolls,  see  Vol.  9  of  Selden  Society  Series 
"Select  Coroners  Rolls"  and  see  Post,  Sects.  39-40. 

(!)  See  Post,  Sect.  55. 

(v)  See  Post,  Chapter  VI. 


THE  STATUTE  DE  OFFICIO  CORONATORE  41 

drowned  or  suddenly  dead;  and  afterwards  it  is  to  be  seen 
of  such  bodies,  whether  the  persons  were  so  drowned  or 
slain  or  strangled,  by  the  mark  on  the  neck,  or  by  a  mark 
on  any  of  the  limbs,  or  by  any  hurt  found  on 
the  body;  and  so  they  are  to  proceed  in  form 
aforesaid;  if  they  were  not  slain,  then  ought  the  coroner  to 
attach  the  finders  and  all  others  in  company.  Of  treasure- 
trove,  the  coroner  ought  to  inquire  who  are  the  finders  (w), 
and  in  like  manner  who  are  suspected  thereof  and  this 
may  be  well  perceived,  where  one  usually  haunteth  taverns, 
and  hath  done  so  of  long  time,  on  such  a  suspicion  he  ought 
to  be  attached  by  four  or  six  pledges,  or  by  more,  if  he 
can  find  them.  Further,  if  any  be  appealed  (x)  of  rape, 
he  must  be  attached,  if  the  appeal  be  fresh,  and  if  they  see 
sign  of  truth  by  effusion  of  blood,  of  cry  (y)  raised;  and 
such  must  be  attached  by  four  or  six  pledges  if  they  can 
be  found;  but  if  the  appeal  were  without  cry,  and  without 
any  manifest  sign,  then  two  pledges  are  sufficient.  Upon 
appeal  of  wound  and  such  like,  if  the  wound  be  mortal,  the 
appellee  shall  be  taken  immediately,  and  kept  until  it  be 
known  whether  the  party  hurt  shall  recover  or  not,  and  if 
he  die,  the  guilty  persons  shall  be  kept;  but  if  he  recover, 
they  shall  be  attached  by  four  or  six  pledges  according  as 
the  wound  shall  be.  And  for  a  maim,  they  shall  be  attached 
by  more  than  four;  and  for  a  simple  wound  without  a 
maim  two  pledges  are  sufficient.  Also  of  all  wounds  it  must 
be  seen  what  is  the  length,  breadth  and  depth,  and  with 
what  weapons  the  person  was  wounded  (2),  and  in  what 
part  of  the  body ;  and  whether  many  are  guilty  thereof,  and 
whether  there  are  many  wounds,  and  who  gave  them  and 
what  sort  of  wounds;  and  so  ought  all  things  to  be  enrolled 
in  the  coroner's  roll.  But  if  any  be  appealed,  he  who  is 
appealed  of  the  fact  shall  be  taken;  and  those  appealed  of 
the  force  shall  be  safely  attached,  until  the  appellee  of  the 

(a/)  Post,  Sect.  34. 

(*)  Post.  Sect.  38.  This  proposition  is  quite  different  from  having 
an  inquest  of  rape,  see  Britton  3a. 

(y)  Wherever  a  rape  was  committed  it  was  the  duty  of  the  in- 
jured party  to  raise  the  hue  and  cry. 

(*)  This  sounds  like  an  inquest  of  mayhem,  but  it  undoubtedly  re- 
fers to  appeals. 


42    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

fact  shall  be  convicted.  Concerning  horses,  boats,  carts 
whereby  any  one  is  killed  (a)  which  are  properly  called 
vari,  they  shall  be  appraised  and  delivered  to  the  towns." 
"Concerning  wreck  of  the  sea  (b)  wheresoever  it  be 
found,  if  any  one  lay  hands  upon  it,  he  shall  be  attached 
by  good  and  safe  pledges  and  the  prices  of  the  wreck  shall 
be  valued,  and  delivered  to  the  towns.  But  if  one  be  ac- 
cused of  the  death  of  any  one,  he  shall  be  taken  and  impris- 
oned as  above.  In  like  manner  of  all  homicides  and  bur- 
glaries, hue  shall  be  levied,  as  elsewhere  is  used  in  England. 
And  all  shall  follow  the  hue  and  cry,  if  they  can  do  so,  and 
they  who  shall  not,  and  shall  be  thereupon  convicted  that 
they  would  not,  shall  be  attached  to  be  before  the  justices" 

(O- 

Bracton's  treatise  is  so  identically  similar  that  it  would 
be  a  waste  of  time  to  quote  it  at  length.  It  is  evident,  there- 
fore, that  the  statute  is  wholly  directory  and  in  affirmance 
of  the  common  law  (d).  It  "doth  neither  restrain  the  cor- 
oner from  any  branch  of  his  power  nor  excuse  him  from  the 
execution  of  any  part  of  his  duty  not  mentioned  in  it, 
which  was  incident  to  his  office  before"  (e).  Therefore, 
since  it  was  his  duty  before  the  statute,  it  is  still  his  duty  to 
hold  inquests  upon  the  bodies  of  all  who  die  in  prison  (/). 

Sect.  28.  The  provisions  of  the  act  are  very  rigorous 
as  to  the  seizure  of  the  goods  of  those  suspected  or  accused 
of  felony,  before  the  inquest.  These  provisions  were  re- 
pealed by  the  statute  of  first  Richard  III,  chapter  3  (g). 


(a)  And  which  were  therefore  deodand,  see  Post,  Sect.  55. 
(&)  This  seems  at  variance  with  the  view  expressed  by  Professor 
Gross,  supra,  Sect.  26,  note  c. 

(c)  I  Statutes  of  the  Realm  40   (1275),  see  Bacon's  Abridgment 
Title  Coroners,  6  Viner's  Abridgment  248. 

(d)  Bacon's  Abridgment  Title  Coroners,  6  Viner's  Abridgment  248; 
Fitzherbert's  Abridgment  Coroners  421;  2  Coke's  Institutes  176-210;  3 
Coke's  Institutes  52-91 ;  Brooke's  Abridgement  168.   Staundeford's  Pleas 
of  the  Crown  51 ;  i  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  432 ;  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the 
Crown  57 ;  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  c  9,  Sect.  2 ;  I  East's  Pleas 
of  the  Crown  381 ;  Bacon  on  Government  179. 

(f)  Fitzherbert's  Abridgment  Coroners  421 ;  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of 
the  Crown  c  9,  Sect.  21 ;  Bacon's  Abridgment  Title  Coroners. 

(/)  Fleta  Lib.  I,  Cap.  26,  Sect.  5;  Bacon's  Abridgment  Title  Cor- 
oners, 2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  Chapter  9,  Sect.  21. 

(g)  2  Statutes  of  the  Realm  478  (1483),  see  Jervis  on  Coroners  33, 
234- 


THE  STATUTE  DE  OFFICIO  CORONATORE  43 

That  Statute  enacts : 

"That  no  sheriff,  under  sheriff  nor  escheator,  bailiff  of 
franchise  or  any  other  person  shall  take  or  seize  the  goods 
of  a  person  arrested  or  imprisoned  for  suspicion  of  felony 
before  that  the  same  person  so  arrested  or  imprisoned  be 
convicted  or  attainted  of  such  felony  according  to  the  law,  or 
else  the  same  goods  be  otherwise  lawfully  forfeited  upon 
pain  to  forfeit  double  the  value  of  the  goods  so  taken,  to 
him  that  is  hurt  in  that  behalf  by  action  of  debt." 

Having  now  taken  a  general  view  of  the  office  and  du- 
ties of  coroners,  let  us  proceed  to  a  more  careful 
consideration  of  their  election,  qualifications,  functions, 
rights,  duties,  privileges  and  liabilities. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE    ELECTION    AND    QUALIFICATIONS    OF    CORONERS. 

Sect.  29.  The  Statute  of  Westminster  I  provides  as 
we  have  seen  (a)  that  in  all  shires  coroners  shall  be  chosen. 
It  is  to  be  presumed  therefore,  as  the  statute  is  in  affirm- 
ance of  the  common  law  (6),  that  it  means  they  are  to  be 
elected.  In  articuli  super  cartas  (c)  the  right  of  electing 
coroners  is  confirmed  to  the  counties  saving,  however,  the 
rights  of  the  king  and  other  lords  "who  ought  to  make 
coroners  within  their  seignories  and  franchises"  (rf).  The 
statute  provides  that  the  coroner  shall  be  chosen  by  the  full 
county  in  the  county  court  assembled  (e),  by  the  commons. 

The  coroner  was  to  be  chosen  by  the  commons  and  not 
by  the  freeholders.  Hawkins  assures  us  (/)  that  as  the 
statute  was  only  in  affirmance  of  the  common  law  and  as  at 
common  law,  none  but  freeholders  could  vote  in  the  county 
court,  it  is  beyond  doubt  that  only  the  freeholders  could 
vote  for  coroner  (g).  Blackstone  says:  (/»)  "He  is  still 
chosen  by  all  the  freeholders  in  the  county  court  as  by  the 


(a)  Ante,  Sect.  26. 

(fr)  Ante,  Sect.  23,  note  (x)  ;  Staundeford  affirms  that  prior  to  the 
statute  poor  men  were  chosen,  Pleas  of  the  Crown  cap.  51. 

(c)  28  Edward  III,  c  6  (1354)  ;  I  Statutes  of  the  Realm  346,  see  2 
Coke's  Institutes  558,  and  see  ante,  Sect.  23,  note  (y)  ;  Hawkins  says 
this  act  reads  as  follows:    "That  all  coroners  of  the  counties  shall  be 
chosen  in  the  full  counties  by  the  commons  of  the  same  counties  of 
the  most  meet  and  lawful  people  that   shall  be   found  in  the  same 
counties  to  execute  the  said  offices  saving  always  to  the  King  and  other 
Lords  who  ought  to  make  such  coroners  in  their  siegnories  and  fran- 
chises" and  adds  "none  but  freeholders  had  votes  F.  N.  B.  164,  S.  P.  C. 
49.    For  none  but  such  are  suitors  to  the  county  court  2  Inst.  99";  2 
Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c.  9,  Sect.  10. 

(d)  Britton,  Chapter  i,  Sect.  4;  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown, 
Chapter  51 ;  Blackstone  says  this  was  in  order  more  surely  to  effect  the 
preservation  of  the  people's  rights  against  prerogative,  i  Commentaries 
347- 

(*)  Britton,  Chapter  i,  Sect.  4,  and  see  Fleta  Lib.  II,  c  18,  Sect.  I. 

(/)  2  Pleas  of  the  Crown  c  9,  Sects.  9  and  10. 

(0)  See  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  49  and  Anonymous  3 
Atkyns  184  (1744). 

(A)  i  Commentaries  347,  citing  2  Coke's  Institute  558  and  Fitz- 
herbert  Natura  Brevium  163,  and  see  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the 
Crown,  cap.  51. 

(44) 


ELECTIONS  AND  QUALIFICATIONS  OF  CORONERS      45 

policy  of  our  ancient  law  the  sheriffs  and  conservators  of 
the  peace  and  all  other  officers  were  who  were  concerned 
in  matters  that  affected  the  liberty  of  the  people  as  vender- 
ors  of  the  forest  still  are,  whose  business  it  is  to  stand  be- 
tween prerogative  and  the  subject  in  the  execution  of  the 
forest  laws." 

On  the  death  or  removal  of  a  coroner  (i)  there  is  a  writ 
at  common  law  de  coronatore  eligendo  in  which  it  is  ex- 
pressly commanded  the  sheriff  "quod  talem  eligi  faciat  qui 
melius  et  sciat  et  velit  et  possit  officio  ille  intendere"  (k). 
This  writ  proceeded  out  of  Chancery  directed  to  the  sheriff 
(m).  The  writ  was  usually  in  the  following  form  («). 

Rex  Vic.  &c.  Quia  L.  nuper  unus  coronatorium  nostr'  in 
com'  tuo  diem  clausit  extrenum  ut  acccptimus.  Tibi  prae- 
cipimus  quod  Si  it  a  est  tune  in  pleno  com3  tuo  de  assensu 
ejusdem  com'  loco  ipsius  L.  eligi  fac'  unum  alium  corona,- 
torem  juxta  formam  statui  inde  edit  &  provisi  qui  praestito 
sacrament'  prout  moris  est,  extunc  ea  fac'  &  conservet  quae 
ad  officium  coronatoris  pertinent  in  com'  praedict  &  talem 
eum  eligi  fac'  quo  melius  sciat  &  possit  officio  illi  intendere 
&  nomen  ejus  nobis  scire  fac'. 

TESTE. 

The  election  was  upon  view  or  by  poll  as  of  knights 
of  parliament  (o)  or  verderors  (/>).  The  sheriff  then  cer- 
tified the  election  back  to  chancery  (q).  The  coroner  is 


(i)  Register  177,  Fitzherbert's  Natura  Brevium  163,  K.,  Comyns 
Digest  Title  Office  G.  3. 

(k)  See  supra,  note  (h). 

(w)  Bacon's  Abridgment  Title  Coroners  (A).  , 

(n)  The  form  here  given  is  that  in  Fitzherbert's  Natura  Brevium 
p.  163,  for  a  similar  form  see  Bacon's  Abridgment  Title  Coroners  (A)  ; 
see  Jervis  on  Coroners  13  and  14. 

(0)  In  early  times  in  Pennsylvania  coroners  were  chosen  in  the 
same  manner  as  members  of  the  General  Assembly. 

(/>)  Comyns  Digest  Title  Officer  G.  3. 

(g)  Fitzherbert's  Natura  Brevium  163  K. ;  Staundeford's  Pleas  of 
the  Crown  cap.  51,  Comyns  Digest  Title  Officer  G.  3.  For  a  modern 
account  of  an  election  of  a  coroner  see  Salop's  Case  3  Swanston  181. 
For  the  mode  of  election  oath  see  Selden  Coroners  Rolls,  32,  99,  105 ; 
Rot.  Claus.,  Vol.  I,  pp.  366,  368,  402,  409,  414,  419  (bis),  463,  506,  560, 
622,  648,  Vol.  II,  69-91-105-119-121-126;  Cooper  Records,  Vol.  I,  121; 
Britton,  Book  I,  page  8;  I  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  346;  Rot.  Parl.,  Vol. 
II,  p.  260;  in  a  few  cases  the  King  seems  to  have  appointed  the  cor- 
oner; Selden's  Coroners  Rolls,  91  Rot.  Claus.,  Vol.  I,  p.  560. 


46    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

elected  for  the  county  at  large  (r)  and  is  chosen  for  life  (j). 
In  the  close  rolls  the  new  elections  are  often  said  to  be  due 
to  death,  illness,  inefficiency  or  insufficient  qualifications 
(t).  Elected  he  is  to  be  sworn  by  the  sheriff  (u)  that  "he 
will  lawfully  do  what  belongeth  to  the  office  of  coroner" 
(v).  But  though  the  coroner  is  elected  by  virtue  of  the 
king's  writ  and  his  election  would  be  void  otherwise  he 
draws  his  authority  from  the  election  and  not  from  the 
king  (71')  and  not  being  created  by  commission,  he  retains 
his  office  when  the  king  dies  (.r). 

Sect.  30.  WHile  the  freeholders  had  the  privilege  of 
electing  their  coroner  their  choice  was  originally  a  limited 
one.  Everybody  was  not  eligible  to  the  office.  "In  ancient 
times"  says  Coke  (y)  "they  were  knights,  honest,  loyall 
(sic)  and  sage."  The  Statute  of  Merton  assumes  that  all 
coroners  are  knights  (2)  and  that  of  Westminster  I,  spe- 
cifically directs  that  they  shall  be  (a).  It  was  held  sufficient 


(r)  The  county  was  not  divided  into  coroners  districts,  ante,  Sect. 
23,  note  (h).  See  Wrote  v.  Wigges,  4  Coke's  Reports  466  (1592),  and 
see  Comyn's  Digest  Title  Officer  G. 

( j)  Gross's  Introduction  to  Select  Coroners  Rolls,  XX ;  I  Black- 
stone's  Commentaries  348. 

(0  See  also  Northumberland  Rolls,  68;  Eyton,  Shropshire,  Vol. 
IV,  p.  118. 

(«)  14  Edward  III  c.  8  (1340)  ;  i  Statutes  of  the  Realm  283,  Fitz- 
herbert  Natura  Brevium  164;  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  cap. 
Si- 

(v)  Britton  Chapter  i,  Sect.  4,  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown 
49 ;  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  55 ;  4  Coke's  Institutes  271 ;  Fitzherbert 
Natura  Brevium  163 ;  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  c  9,  Sect.  7. 

(w)  Bacon's. Abridgment  Title  Coroners  (A)  and  cases  there  cited 
and  see  ante. 

(.*•)  See  ante,  Sect.  24,  note  (n)  ;  Brooke's  Abridgment  "office"  pi. 
25,  citing  4  Edward  IV,  43  and  44;  2  Coke's  Institutes,  175  d,  4  Coke's 
Institutes  271 ;  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  55 ;  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of 
the  Crown  c  9,  Sect.  5;  I  Elizabeth  fol.  152,  pi.  2;  Anonymous  Daliston 
15  pi.  7;  Tombes  v.  Etherington,  i  Levinz,  120  (1663).  Resolutions  at 
Sergeant's  Inn.  Dyer  165,  (1558)  ;  but  Staundeford  is  of  contrary 
opinion  saying  that  the  coroner  is  removable  at  the  King's  option  and 
his  office  ceases  when  the  King  dies,  see  Pleas  of  the  Crown  cap.  51. 

(y)  2  Coke's  Institutes  32. 

(2)  i  Statutes  of  the  Realm  29;  see  ante,  Sect.  13,  Henry  III  gen- 
erally orders  the  sheriff  to  cause  a  knight  to  be  elected,  Gross's  Intro- 
duction to  Select  Coroners  Rolls,  XX,  note  6. 

(a)  Ante,  Sect.  26. 


ELECTIONS  AND  QUALIFICATIONS  OF  CORONERS      47 

cause  to  remove  a  coroner  that  he  was  not  a  knight  (b).    In 
Edward  Ill's  time  no  coroner  could  be  a  justice  (c). 

Concerning  this  requirement  that  he  be  a  knight,  Fitz- 
herbert  tells  us  (d)  that  the  words  are  put  into  the  statute 
in  order  that  he  might  have  sufficient  lands  in  the  county,  for 
every  knight  must  have  lands  of  at  least  the  value  of  £20 
a  year  (e).  This  rule  was  not  as  rigid  as  it  seems.  Every 
man  of  full  age  who  owned  a  knight's  fee  could  be  forced 
to  become  a  knight  by  common  law.  This  was  confirmed  by 
the  statute  of  i  Edward  II,  Chapter  I  (de  militibus)  (/). 
From  this  fact  arose,  strange  as  it  may  seem,  the  degra- 
tion  of  the  office  of  coroner;  for  if  a  man  who  was  not  a 
knight  and  who  had  sufficient  lands  were  elected  coroner 
he  could  qualify  for  the  office  by  becoming  a  knight.  Little 
by  little  the  custom  of  requiring  the  degree  of  knighthood 
of  those  who  had  sufficient  lands,  became  obsolete  by  the 
granting  of  indulgences  to  those  who  did  not  wish  to  be- 
come knights  from  whence  a  large  part  of  the  king's  rev- 
enue arose  (g).  When  the  reason  for  the  rule  had  been 
served  by  causing  men  of  substance  to  be  chosen  coroners, 
the  rule  itself  fell  into  decay  (h).  The  statute  of  14  Ed- 
ward III  provided,  "That  no  coroner  of  the  counties  shall 
be  chosen  unless  he  have  land  in  fee  sufficient  in  the  same 
county  whereof  he  may  answer  all  manner  of  people"  (i), 
but  says  nothing  about  knighthood.  The  coroner  must 
stilli  be  a  man  of  substance,  but  it  is  to  be  noticed  the  pre- 
cise amount  is  not  named.  "It  is  to  be  enough  to  maintain 


(&)  23  Assize  7,  Register  177,  Fitzherbert  Natura  Brevium  164; 
Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  cap.  51 ;  4  Coke's  Institutes  271 ;  but 
this  is  no  longer  the  case.  Borough  &  Holcroft's  Case,  2  Leonard  160 
(IS79)  ;  i  Blackstone's  Commentaries  347,  and  see  infra. 

(c)  Rot.  Parl.,  Vol.  II,  p.  265. 

(rf)  Natura  Brevium  164,  and  see  Bacon's  Abridgment  Title  Cor- 
oners (A). 

(e)  Statute  de  Militibus;  i  Edward  II,  i  Statutes  of  the  Realm 
229. 

(/)  i  Statutes  of  the  Realm  229. 

(g)  Jervis  on  Coroners  10. 

(/»)  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  48c;  Fitzherbert  Natura 
Brevium  164;  2  Coke's  Institutes  176;  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown 
55 ;  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c.  9,  Sect.  3. 

(i)  Statute  I  c  8.     I  Statute  of  the  Realm  283   (1340). 


48    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

his  office  and  answer  any  fine  that  may  be  set  upon  him  for 
misbehavior"  (&).  By  degrees  therefore  (/)  the  custom 
of  electing  a  knight  to  be  coroner  fell  out  of  use.  So  that  it 
came  to  be  no  objection  to  a  person  chosen  coroner  that  he 
was  not  a  knight  (m).  It  is  possible  that  the  opinion  is 
correct  that  the  provision  as  to  knighthood  was  inserted 
to  protect  the  counties  («)  for  it  is  certain  that  if  the  cor- 
oner misbehaved  and  was  unable  to  pay  the  fine  the  county 
by  which  he  was  elected  had  to  answer  for  him  (0)  upon 
the  principle  of  respondeat  superior  (/>).  • 

Knighthood  was  not  the  only  qualification  required  of 
coroners.  "The  Statute  of  Westminster  the  first  directs 
they  should  be  knights,  but  that  is  out  of  use"  (q).  By  the 
statute  of  28  Edward  III,  chapter  6,  they  ought  to  be 
lawful  and  fit  men  (r).  Lord  Coke  tells  us  that  a  coroner 
should  be  "(i)  Probus  homo,  (2)  lawful,  i.  e.  legalis  homo, 
(3)  of  sufficient  understanding  and  knowledge  (s),  (4) 
of  good  ability  and  power  to  execute  his  office  according 
to  his  knowledge,  (5)  of  diligence  and  intendance  for  the 
due  execution  of  the  said  office  (f)."  For  the  law  regarded 
them  so  highly  (u)  that  "it  not  onely  (sic)  required  expert 
men  to  be  coroners,  but  men  of  sufficient  ability  and  liveli- 
hood for  three  purposes.  ( i )  The  law  presumes  that  they 
will  do  their  duty  and  not  offend  the  law,  at  least  for  fear 
of  punishment  whereunto  their  lands  and  goods  be  sub- 
ject. (2)  That  they  be  able  to  answer  to  the  king  all  such 

(&)  Jervis  on  Coroners  12. 

(/)  Because  if  he  had  lands  sufficient  he  at  first  could  be  forced 
to  become  a  knight  and  later  could  secure  an  indulgence;  Jervis  on 
Coroners  10. 

(m)  Borough  &  Holcroft's  Case,  2  Leonard  160  (1579)  ;  2  Haw- 
kins's Pleas  of  the  Crown  c  9,  Sect.  3;  Bacon's  Abridgment  Title  Cor- 
oners (A). 

(n)  2  Coke's  Institutes  175. 

(o)  2  Coke's  Institutes  175;  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  55; 
Jervis  on  Coroners  12. 

(/>)  2  Coke's  Institutes  174-5;  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  56; 
2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  c  9,  Sect.  8. 

(q)  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  55. 

(r)  Ibid. 

(j)  And  see  Register,  177;  Fitzherbert  Natura  Brevium,  164; 
Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  48c. 

(0  2  Coke's  Institutes,  174. 

(M)   Tempo,  Edward  I. 


ELECTIONS  AND  QUALIFICATIONS  OF  CORONERS      49 

fines  and  duties  as  belong  to  him  and  to  discharge  the  county 
thereof  wherewith  the  county  being  their  electors  were 
chargeable.  (3)  That  they  might  execute  their  office  with- 
out bribery  (z/)." 

.Nor  was  this  all:  if  the  coroner  so  far  engage  in  any 
other  public  business  in  the  county  that  he  cannot  have  leis- 
ure enough  to  attend  to  the  office  of  a  coroner,  or  if  chosen 
verderor  of  the  forest  (w)  or  justice  (x}  or  if  he  have  not 
sufficient  lands  whereon  to  live  according  to  his  state  and 
degree  (y)  or  if  he  follows  a  common  trade,  he  cannot  be 
coroner  (z}.  From  this  it  would  seem  that  the  office  was 
held  in  great  esteem  in  ancient  times  (a).  Coke  says,  "they 
ought  in  ancient  times  to  be  knights,  honest,  loyall  and  sage 
*  *  *  et  qui  melius  sciat  et  velit  et  possit  officio  illi  in- 
tendere  for  this  was  the  policy  of  prudent  antiquity 
that  officers  did  ever  give  grace  to  the  place  and  not  the 
place  only  to  grace  the  officer"  (3;).  In  the  fifth  year  of 
King  Edward  III  a  common  merchant  being  chosen  a  cor- 
oner was  removed  from  office  "per  quod  communis  merca- 
tor  erat"  (fe).  Though  the  office  was  considered  so  honor- 
able— Chaucer  in  speaking  of  Franklyn  says,  "a  shirieve 
had  he  been  and  a  coronour" — it  was  evidently  regarded 
as  a  burden — for  many  persons  obtained  royal  grants  which 
exempted  them  from  acting  as  coroners  (c)  and  in  1221 
a  coroner  paid  a  fine  to  be  removed  from  office  (rf).  The 
office  did  not  seem  to  suit  with  a  white  ruff  and  laced 
sleeves,  mere  duty  seldom  rules  men's  minds:  so  that,  as 
Blackstone  says  (e}  "though  it  be  it  be  culpable  neglect, 
gentlemen  of  property  do  not  desire  this  office  and  it  has 

(v)  2  Coke's  Institutes,  175. 

(w/)  Register  177,  Fitzherbert  Natura  Brevium,  163-4;  Staunde- 
ford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  40;  Griesley's  Case,  8  Coke's  Reports,  41 
(1598)  ;  2  Coke's  Institutes,  32;  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c.  9, 
Sect.  12;  i  Blackstone's  Commentaries,  348. 

(x)  Rot.  Parl.,  Vol.  II,  p.  265. 

(y)  2  Coke's  Institutes,  32. 

(*)  2  Coke's  Institutes,  32. 

(a)  2  Coke's  Institutes,  32 ;  4  Coke's  Institutes,  271. 

(fr)  5  Edward  III,  nu.  38;  Register,  177;  2  Coke's  Institutes,  33. 

(c)  Roles  Gascons  (ed.  Michel),  45-124-291-297-300-468. 

(rf)  Pleas  of  Gloucester,  109. 

(e)  I  Commentaries,  348. 


SO    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

fallen  into  disrepute,  so  that  although  formerly  no  coroner 
would  have  stooped  to  lucre  and  by  the  statute  of  West- 
minster I  (/)  they  were  expressly  prohibited  from  receiving 
any  reward  under  pain  of  great  forfeiture  to  the  king,  yet 
for  many  years  past  they  have  only  been  chosen  to  the  office 
for  the  sake  of  its  perquisites  being  allowed  fees  for  their 
attendance  by  3  Henry  VII,  c.  I  (of  which  Sir  Edward  Coke 
complains  heavily)"  and  adds  cynically  "though  since  his 
time  those  fees  have  been  much  enlarged." 

Sect.  31.  The  coroner  is  chosen  for  life  (g)  but  may 
be  removed  (i)  by  being  made  sheriff  (h)  or  verderor 
(f),  which  are  offices  incompatible  with  that  of  coroner  (£), 
(2)  by  the  king's  writ  de  conoratore  exonerando  (/)  for 
a  cause  to  be  therein  assigned  (m)  or  (3)  by  the  election  of 
a  new  coroner  in  his  place  which  ipso  facto  removes  the 
old  one  («).  The  following  forms  of  the  writ  de  coron- 
atore  exonerando  are  given  by  Fitzherbert  (0}  and  are  prob- 
ably the  most  approved. 

Rex  Vic  &c.  Quia  R — unus  coronatorum  nostorum  com' 
tui  divers  negotiis  nostris  in  com'  tuo  faciend'  ita  occupat 
est  quod  ea  quae  ad  Officio  coronatoris  in  eodem  com'  perti- 
nent exercend  vacare  non  potest,  pro  certo  intelleximus  ipsum 
ab  officip  illo  amovimus.  Tibi  praecipimus  quod  unum  alium 
coronal  or  em  etc.  (ut  supra  vel  sic}. 

Qui  ex  testimonio  accipimus  fide  digno  quod  W.  T. — 
unus  coronatorum  nostrorum  com'  tui  adeo  languidus  est  & 
senio  confectus  quod  ea  &c.  exercend'  non  sufficit  ipsum  W. 


(/)  The  statute  intended  here  is  evidently  4  Edward  I.  It  will 
be  remembered  that  statute  is  sometimes  spoken  of  as  the  26th  Chapter 
of  Westminster  I. 

(0)  i  Blackstone's  Commentaries,  348. 

(h)  Register,  I77b;  Fitzherbert  Natura  Brevium,  164  N;  i  Black- 
stone's  Commentaries,  348. 

(1)  Register,  I77b;  Fitzherbert  Natura  Brevium,  164  N;  Staunde- 
ford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  48;  2  Coke's  Institutes,  32;  2  Hawkins's 
Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c.  g,  Sect.  12;  i  Blackstone's  Commentaries,  348; 
Griesley's  Case,  8  Coke's  Reports,  41   (1598). 

(k)   i   Blackstone's  Commentaries,  348. 

(/)    Fitzherbert  Natura  Brevium,  163-4;   i   Blackstone's  Commen- 
taries, 348;  Sprecot's  Case,  5  Coke's  Reports,  $8b  (1590). 
(m)   i  Blackstone's  Commentaries,  348. 
(n)  Anonymous,  Godboldt,  105  pi.  123  (1586). 
(o)  Natura  Brevium,  163-4. 


ELECTIONS  AND  QUALIFICATIONS  OF  CORONERS      51 

duximus  ab  officio  illo  removend'.  Et  ideo  tibi  praecipimus 
&c.  (vel.  sic). 

Quia  W — unus  coronat'  &c.  minus  idon'  est  ad  offic* 
illud  exequend  sicut  ex  relat  &  (vel  sic). 

Quia  acceptimus  quod  w  coronat'  com'  praedict'  nuper 
elect  terr  vel  tenenenta  in  mode  com'  non  habet  in  quibus 
juxta  statum  suum  morari  possit  pro  praedict'  offic'  exercend 
Tibi  praec'  etc.  (vel  sic). 

Quia  A  unus  coronat'  &c.  morbo  pararalysis  percuss  &c* 
(vel  sic). 

Quia  in  extremis  partibus  totius  com'  morat  per  quod 
ea  quae  ad  offi'  &c.  commode  exercer'  non  protest  (vel  sic)~ 

Quia  in  officium  vie'  com'  praedict  est  electus  (vel)  in 
viridarae  forest'  nostr'  des.  electus  extitit  per  quod  &c.  (vel}. 

Quia  non  habet  centum  sol'  terre  ut  die  (vel). 

Quia  non  est  miles  &c.  (p). 

The  causes  for  removal  which  might  be  used  as  the 
basis  of  the  writ  de  coronatore  exonerando  were  (i)  that 
he  is  engaged  in  other  business  (q),  (2)  is  incapacitated  by 
years  (r)  or  sickness  (s),  (3)  that  he  has  not  sufficient  es- 
tate in  the  county  (t)  or  lives  in  an  unconvenient  part  of  it 
(u),  (4)  that  he  is  "communis  mercator"  (v),  (5)  that 


(/»)  But  only  one  case  is  recorded  where  this  was  made  the  cause 
of  removal,  2  Coke's  Institutes,  32,  and  that  was  in  the  reign  of  Ed- 
ward III. 

(q)  Register,  1773;  Fitzherbert  Natura  Brevium,  163  N.    Staunde- 
ford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  48;  2  Coke's  Institutes,  32;  i  Blackstone's 
Commentaries,  348 ;  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c.  9,  Sect.  12. 
and  see  Griesley's  Case,  8  Coke's  Reports,  41   (1598). 

(r)  Register,  I77b;  Fitzherbert  Natura  Brevium,  164  N;  Staunde- 
ford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  48;  2  Coke's  Institutes,  32;  i  Blackstone's 
Commentaries,  348;  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c.  9,  Sect.  12. 

(j)  Register,  I77b;  Fitzherbert  Natura  Brevium,  164  N;  i  Black- 
stone's  Commentaries,  348;  Griesley's  Case,  8  Coke's  Reports,  41  (1598). 

(0  Register,  177;  Fitzherbert  Natura  Brevium,  163-4;  Staunde- 
ford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  48;  2  Coke's  Institutes,  32;  i  Blackstone's 
Commentaries,  438;  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c.  9,  Sect.  12; 
Griesley's  Case,  8  Coke's  Reports,  41  (1598). 

(M)  Register,  I77b;  Fitzherbert  Natura  Brevium,  164  N;  Staunde- 
ford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  48;  i  Blackstone's  Commentaries,  348,  or 
out  of  it  see  Anonymous,  3  Atkyns,  184  (1744). 

(v)  2  Coke's  Institutes,  32 ;  Comyns'  Digest,  Title  Officer,  G.  4. 


52    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

he  is  minus  Moncus  («;),  (6)  or  misbehaves  himself  (*•). 
Indeed  during  the  period  we  are  considering  the  sixth  was 
probably  not  a  cause  for  removal,  it  having  first  been  created 
such  in  1752  by  the  statute  of  25  George  II,  chapter  20  (y) 
which  made  extortion,  neglect  or  misbehavior  causes  for  re- 
moval (z},  Hugh  de  Muscham,  coroner  of  Derbyshire,  was 
removed  from  office  by  virtue  of  the  king's  writ  without 
specifying  any  cause  (a).  The  calendars  of  Close  Rolls 
of  Edward  II's  time  indicate  that  many  coroners  were  re- 
moved from  office  when  the  new  king  came  to  the  throne, 
but  during  the  rest  of  the  reign  such  changes  were  infre- 
quent (b).  Edward  II  was  deposed  from  his  throne. 
Staundeford  suggests  (bb)  that  "it  would  be  more  com- 
mendable in  him  who  is  elected  coroner  if  he  perceive  in 
himself  any  of  the  aforesaid  impediments  for  him  to  pur- 
chase for  himself  a  writ  of  discharge  from  his  said  office 

(f). 

In  1351  the  commons  prayed  that  sheriffs,  coroners  and 
escheators  should  be  changed  annually.  Statutes  have  come 
down  to  us  as  to  sheriffs  and  escheators,  but  none  as  to  cor- 
oners (or). 

Where  it  is  sought  to  remove  a  coroner  from  office,  a 
suggestion  is  filed  in  chancery,  alleging  the  cause.  This 
suggestion  is  not  traversable  (d),  but  if  it  be  false  the  cor- 
oner can  have  a  commission  out  of  chancery  to  inquire  into 


(w~)  Register,  177;  Fitzherbert  Natura  Brevium,  163  N;  2  Coke's 
Institutes,  176;  Sprecot's  Case,  5  Coke's  Reports,  58b  (1590). 

(x)  i  Blackstone's  Commentaries,  348;  see  Anonymous,  3  Atkyns, 
184  (1744).  There  is  some  doubt  raised  by  this  case  as  to  whether  the 
Chancery  had  a  right  to  remove  a  coroner,  but  seems  to  decide  it 
could. 

(y)  20  Statutes  at  Large  (Eng.),  235. 

(z)  See  I  Blackstone's  Commentaries,  348. 

(a)  Gross's  Introduction  to  Select  Coroners  Rolls,  XX;  and 
Staundeford  says  this  was  legal,  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  48. 

(6)  Calendar  of  Close  Rolls  (1307-13)  13-165-381-406-470,  &c. 

(bb)  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  cap.  51. 

(c)  Which  writ  he  tells  us  is  to  be  found  in  the  Register,  folio 
177- 

(cc)  Supra,  note  (a)  and  Staundeford  says  that  the  act  did  not 
pass. 

(d)  2  Male's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  56;  Fitzherbert  Natura  Brevium, 
163;   Sprecot's  Case,  5  Coke's  Reports,  s8b   (1500);  but  this  note  is 
found  in  Sergeant  Hill's  copy  of  Coke's  Reports:    "This  is  not  war- 


ELECTIONS  AND  QUALIFICATIONS  OF  CORONERS      53 

the  truth  of  it  (e )  which  acts  as  a  supersedeas  if  the  sug- 
gestion is  disproved  (/).  Some  go  so  far  as  to  say  that  the 
king  must  make  it  a  supersedeas  to  the  sheriff  that  he  do 
not  remove  the  coroner,  and  if  the  sheriff  has  already  re- 
moved him  from  office,  that  he  suffer  him  to  execute  his 
office  as  he  did  before  (g). 

It  was  possible,  therefore,  that  it  might  be  uncertain 
who  was  the  coroner  and  it  seems  upon  principle  that  this 
question  should  have  been  tried  by  the  record.  It  is  said, 
however,  that  coroner  or  not  coroner  should  be  tried  by  the 
county  from  which  he  is  chosen  (/i),  though  this,  it  seems, 
should  rightly  apply  only  to  cases  where  the  question  arose 
out  of  the  election  of  a  coroner. 


ranted  by  F.  N.  B.  163.  It  is  extraordinary  that  there  is  a  note  there 
that  the  cause  is  not  traversable  and  vouches,  5  Co.  58,  for  it,  and  the 
notes  are  always  said  to  be  written  by  Lord  Hale.  I  have  compared 
F.  N.  B.  with  old  editions  which  agree  with  the  more  modern,  and  the 
vouching  these  cases  is  absurd."  But,  however  absurd  it  is,  the  rule 
was  made  law  in  ex  parte  Purnell,  I  Jacobs  &  Walker,  431  (1820). 

(e)  Fitzherbert  Natura  Brevium,  164  D;  Staundeford's  Pleas  of 
the  Crown,  48-49;  and  he  must  have  notice  of  the  suggestion,  Anony- 
mous, 3  Atkyn,  184  (1744). 

(/)  Fitzherbert  Natura  Brevium,  164  D ;  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the 
Crown,  56. 

(g)  Register,  I77b-i78a;  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  49; 
Fitzherbert  Natura  Brevium,  164;  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c.  9, 
Sect.  13. 

(h)  Where  it  was  alleged  one  was  not  coroner  at  the  time  at 
which  the  issue  was  taken,  this  issue  shall  be  tried  per  pares  and  not 
by  the  record,  for  if  the  writ  de  coronatore  elegando  have  not  been  re- 
turned, which  often  happens,  the  record  will  be  false,  32  Henry  VI,  27 
vide  The  Coroner's  Case;  Jenkins's  Century  Cases,  90  pi.  721. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE    FUNCTIONS    OF    CORONERS. 

Sect  32.  It  is  now  necessary  to  direct  the  attention  to 
the  functions  of  the  coroner.  In  so  doing  we  will  consider, 
first,  their  functions  in  general;  (a)  second,  their  authority 
and  duties,  (£),  third,  their  liabilities  (c)  ;  fourth,  their 
powers  (rf)  and  fifth,  their  rights  and  privileges  (e).  "The 
office  and  powers  of  coroner"  says  Blackstone  (/),  "are  also 
like  those  of  sheriff's,  judicial  or  ministerial,  but  principally 
judicial.  This  is  in  great  measure  ascertained  by  the  stat- 
ute of  4  Edward  I." 

Sect.  33.  "Their  jurisdiction  by  4  Edward  I,"  says 
Lord  Hale  (g}  "is  i,  of  the  death  of  a  man  by  felony  or 
misfortune,  2,  treasure  trove,  3,  appeals  of  rape,  4,  appeals 
de  plagis  and  makemio,  5,  of  deodands,  6,  of  wreck  of  the 
sea,  7,  by  some  of  breaches  of  prison  (/&)•"  To  set  forth 
at  large  the  different  descriptions  of  their  powers  by  the 
many  authorities  (*)  who  have  described  them  would  be 
tedious,  but  it  may  perhaps  be  well  to  enumerate  the  various 
powers  attributed  to  them.  They  are  said  to  have  power  to 
record  of  all  pleas  of  the  crown  (&),  to  take  inquisitions  of 


(a)  Post,  Sect.  33. 

(&)  Post,  Sects.  34-35-36-37-38. 

(O  Post,  Sect.  39. 

(d)  Post,  Sects.  40-41-42. 

(e}  Post,  Sects.  43-44. 

(/)  i  Commentaries,  348,  citing  4  Inst.  271 ;  Ld.  Raym.  1305. 

(g)  2  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  57. 

(h)  And  see  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  65-435;  Hale's  Sum- 
mary, 170-1 ;  Fleta  lib.  i  c.  26,  Sect.  5 ;  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the 
Crown,  51 ;  2  Coke's  Institutes,  32 ;  4  Coke's  Institutes,  271 ;  Comyns' 
Digest,  Title  Officer,  G.  8;  Umfreville  Lex  Coronatoris,  210,  for  the 
death  many  have  been  caused  per  dure  Guard. 

(i)  Bracton,  Britton,  Fleta,  Mirror,  Staundeford,  Fitzherbert, 
Coke,  Hale,  Umfreville,  Hawkins,  Jervis,  have  all  defined  the  duties 
of  coroner  in  the  most  unique  way. 

(k)  In  the  tourn  Gilbert's  Historical  View  of  the  Exchequer,  80; 
and  see  Mirror,  c.  I,  Sect.  13,  and  4  Edward  I,  Sect.  I. 

(54) 


THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  CORONERS  SS 

death,  (/)  and  felo  de  se  (w),  of  wounding  (w),  rape  (0), 
arson  (/>),  housebreaking  (q),  prison  breach  (r)  and  other 
felonies  (.y),  of  treasure  trove  (t),  wreck  of  the  sea  (u), 
and  royal  fish  (z/),  appeals  of  murder  or  manslaughter  («/), 
wounds  (x),  maim  (y),  robbery  (2),  rape  (a)  or  other 
felonies  (&),  to  impose  abjurations  (c),  to  receive  confes- 
sions in  sanctuary  (d),  the  confessions  and  appeals  of  an 
approver  (tf),  but  not  of  treason  even  by  special  writ  of 
the  King  (/)  to  receive  proof  of  Englishery  (g~),  forfeiture 
(h),  deodands  (t),  to  award  a  capias  and  alias  and  thereupon 
demand  the  defendant  at  five  counties  and  outlaw  the  de- 
fendant (&),  to  record  the  nonsuit  of  the  plaintiff  in  an 


(/)  Bracton,  f.  121;  4  Edward  I,  Sect,  i;  Mirror,  c.  i,  Sect.  13; 
Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c.  51 ;  Fleta,  Book  i,  Chapter  25, 
Sect.  i. 

(w)  Gilbert's  History  View  of  the  Exchequer,  80. 

(w)  Mirror,  c.  i,  Sect.  13;  Bracton,  f.  i2ib;  4  Edward  I,  Sect,  i; 
Britton,  c.  I,  5-39;  Fleta,  Book  i,  Chapter  25,  Sects,  i  and  15. 

(0)  Britton,  c.  i,  Sect.  5;  Fleta,  lib.  i,  Cap.  25,  Sect.  14. 
(f>)  Mirror,  c.  i,  Sect.  13. 

(q)  Bracton,  f.  I2ib;  4  Edward  I,  Sect.  i. 

(r)  Britton,  c.  i,  Sect.  5 ;  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  57. 

(s)  Mirror,  c.  I,  Sect.  13;  Britton,  c.  i,  Sect.  5. 

(0  Mirror,  c.  I,  Sect.  13;  Bracton,  f.  121  b.  I ;  4  Edward  I,  Sect. 
2;  Fleta,  Book  i,  c.  25,  Sect.  i. 

(«)   Mirror,  c.  I,  Sect  13;  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  57. 

(v)  Britton,  c.  I,  Sect.  42. 

(w)  Britton,  c.  I,  Sect.  15;  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown, 
c.  52. 

(*)  Bracton,  f.  I2ib;  4  Edward  I,  Sect.  2. 

(y)  Bracton,  f.  I2ib;  4  Edward  I,  Sect.  2. 

(z)  Britton,  c.  i,  Sect.  15. 

(a)  Bracton,  f.  I2ib;  4  Edward  I,  Sect.  2;  Britton,  c.  I,  Sects. 
5-38;  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  57;  Fleta,  Book  i,  Chapter  25,  Sect. 
14;  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c.  52. 

(&)  Mirror,  c.  I,  Sect.  13. 

(c)  Mirror,  c.  I,  Sect.  13;  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c.  51. 

(<0  Britton,  c.  I,  Sect.  36. 

(e)  Britton,  c.  i,  Sect.  36;  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c.  51. 

(/)  2  Coke's  Institutes,  629;  6  Viner's  Abridgment,  246. 

(g)  Britton,  c.  I,  Sect.  35. 

(/»)  4  Edward  I,  Sect,  i;  Bracton,  f.  I2ib;  Britton,  c.  i,  Sect.  13. 

(1)  Britton,  c.  i,  Sect.  28;  Mirror,  c.  I,  Sect.  13. 

(k)  Britton,  c.  i,  Sects.  17,  18,  19,  20,  21,  22;  Mirror,  c.  I,  Sect. 
13;  Gilbert's  Historical  View  of  the  Exchequer,  80;  Staundeford's  Pleas 
of  the  Crown,  c.  51. 


56    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

appeal  by  bill  before  him  (/),  and  all  judgments  of  death 
given  in  his  jurisdiction  (w). 

All  these  things  may  be  classified  into  four  general 
heads:  I.  The  power  to  take  inquests  («)  ;  2.  to  receive 
and  record  appeals  (o)  ;  3.  as  to  outlawry  (00)  ;  4.  as  to 
sanctuary  and  abjurations  (/»). 

Certain  matters,  however,  remain  to  be  noticed  before 
commencing  the  consideration  of  these  powers  seriatim. 
The  office  and  duties  of  coroner  have  been,  as  we  have  seen, 
from  the  first  a  live  and  growing  thing,  they  have  altered 
from  time  to  time  (9).  We  ought  not  to  be  surprised  to 
find,  then,  that  in  the  early  days,  before  his  office  had  wholly 
ceased  to  be  connected  with  the  idea  of  judgeship  of  the 
county  court,  he  sometimes  convened  the  hundred  for  busi- 
ness and  even  held  the  sheriff's  torn  (r~)  or  that  he  con- 
ducted civil  jury  trials  (even  after  1215)  (s).  They  were 
comptrollers  to  the  sheriff,  keeping  a  record  of  the  fines 
and  amercements  in  the  sheriff's  court. 

Whatever  his  powers  are,  at  any  given  time,  they  can- 
not be  enlarged  by  special  delegation  from  the  crown  (/) 


(0  2  Male's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  67;  Saundeford's  Pleas  of  the 
Crown,  c.  51. 

(m)  Britton,  c.  i,  Sect.  40.  This  sounds  very  fierce,  but  the  object 
was  that  all  the  minor  courts  which  had  power  of  life  and  death 
might  not  pass  sentence  until  the  coming  of  the  Justices,  and  they 
were  then  met  by  the  coroners'  roll  and  the  Justices  passed  upon  the 
correctness  of  the  judgment.  Umfreville's  note  to  this  section. 

(n)  Post,  Sects.  34-35. 

(0)  Post,  Sect.  36. 

(00)  Post,  Sect.  37. 

(/>)  Post,  Sect.  38. 

(q)  For  the  functions  of  coroners  in  the  reigns  of  John  and  Henry 

III,  see   Rotuli   Curiae  Regis,  Vol.   i,  pp.  51-418;   Selden's   Pleas,  pp. 
3-9-19-28-33-45-63-70-84-88-100-117;   Pleas  of  Gloucester,  4-15-20-47-78- 
94-115. 

(r)  Selden's  Pleas,  68-70. 

(j)  Bracton's  Note  Book,  Vol.  II,  pp.  277-389-420-425-452-466-516- 
571-572-627-675-682;  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  151-155-228-264-473;  Salt.  Soc.,  Vol. 

IV,  pp.  84-95-97;  Dugdale's  Monasticon  Anglicae,  Vol.  VI,  p.  2.     In 
1305,  the  king  ordered  an  inquiry  whether  coroners  put  poor  people 
on  juries  to  spare  the  rich. 

(/)  2  Coke's  Institutes,  629;  Finch  Law,  388.  So  no  coroner, 
though  he  have  a  special  commission  from  the  crown,  can  take  a  con- 
fession of  high  or  petit  treason,  Umfreville  Lex  Coronatoris,  155  sed 
quare  19  Henry  VI,  47f. 


THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  CORONERS  57 

yet  where  the  body  cannot  be  viewed  (u)  a  commission  from 
the  king  obviates  the  objection  to  the  coroner's  jur- 
isdiction (v),  but  this  is  not  because  he  is  coroner,  but 
because  the  king  had  the  right  to  appoint  a  commissioner 
to  inquire. 

Sect.  34.  The  first  of  the  powers  or  duties  of  the 
coroner  is  the  power  to  take  inquests.  We  have  already 
seen  (w)  that  there  were  from  two  to  six  coroners  in 
every  county.  The  six  coroners  constituted  but  one  officer, 
yet  any  one  coroner  might  sit  in  cases  of  inquests,  an  in- 
quest taken  by  one  coroner  was  good  (x).  Indeed  it  was 
so  good  that  if  thereafter  another  one  or  more  of  the  cor- 
oners took  an  inquest  on  the  same  body  the  second  inquest 
was  void  (y). 

It  was  the  duty  of  the  coroner  when  he  was  notified 
(2)  that  one  had  been  slain  (a)  or  was  suddenly  dead  (b) 
to  hold  an  inquest  upon  the  body  (c).  But  he  was  not  re- 
quired to  hold  his  inquisition  ex  officio  unless  he  was  notified 


(«)  The  coroner  cannot  take  his  inquisition  if  there  can  be  no 
view  of  the  body. 

(v)  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c.  9,  Sect.  25. 

(«;)  Ante,  Sect.  23. 

(x)  Bracton  Retorn  de  Briefs,  pi.  42;  14  Henry  IV,  34;  Jenkins, 
85,  pi.  65;  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  53a;  2  Hale's  Pleas  of 
the  Crown,  56-66. 

(y)  14  Henry  IV,  34-35;  3  Henry  VI,  6-40-41-42;  Fitzherbert 
Abridgment,  107 ;  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  52 ;  2  Hale's  Pleas 
of  the  Crown,  56-58-59-67 ;  Hale's  Summary,  172 ;  i  Hawkins's  Pleas 
of  the  Crown,  c.  i,  Sect  10;  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c.  9, 
Sect.  45. 

(z)  4  Edward  I,  Sect,  i,  says  when  the  coroner  have  "command" 
of  the  king's  bailiffs  or  from  good  men  of  the  county,  and  see  Britton, 
c.  i,  Sect.  5,  "upon  notice  of  a  felony  or  misadventure";  Mirror,  c.  i, 
Sect.  13,  "warned";  Bracton,  f.  I2ib,  "receive  a  mandate  from  the 
bailiff,"  or  from  "prud  Hommes"  of  the  neighborhood,  and  see  Fleta, 
Book  I,  c.  25,  Sect.  I. 

(a)  Bracton,  fol.  I2ib ;  4  Edward  I,  Sect,  i ;  Britton,  c.  i,  Sect.  5 ; 
Fleta,  lib.  i,  cap.  25,  Sect,  i ;  Mirror,  c.  i,  Sect.  13. 

(6)  By  felony  or  mischance,  Mirror,  c.  i,  Sect.  13,  "suddenly 
dead";  4  Edward  I,  Sect,  i,  whether  by  felony  or  misadventure;  Brit- 
ton, c.  i,  Sect.  9,  and  if  he  died  by  misadventure  it  is  to  be  further 
inquired  by  what  accident,  whether  by  drowning  or  by  a  fall  or  by 
killing  without  other  prepense  malice,  or  was  a  felon  on  himself,  Brit- 
ton, c.  i,  Sects.  26-27-28. 

(c)  Regularly  he  can  only  take  inquisitions  touching  the  death  of 
a  man  and  persons  subito  morttus  and  some  special  incidents  thereto, 


58    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORpNERS 

to  do  so  (d).  The  inquisition  must  be  super  visum  corporis, 
and  if  the  body  could  not  be  found  the  coroner  could  not 
sit  (?).  East  is  of  the  opinion  that  if  the  party  died  of  a 
fever  or  apparent  visitation  of  God  there  is  no  call  for  the 
coroner  to  act  (/).  In  this  proposition  he  is  partly  right.  If 
the  party  died  of  a  fever  he  died  a  natural  death,  and  though 
it  might  seem  sudden  its  suddenness  cannot  be  compared 
with  that  of  death  by  murder  or  unforeseen  violence.  It 
cannot  be  said  that  every  case  of  death  by  visitation  of  God 
is  not  a  fit  subject  of  inquisition  by  the  coroner.  John  Doe 
goes  to  the  fields,  and,  being  taken  with  the  "falling  sick- 
ness," he  falls  down  and  dies.  Well  and  good,  but  the 
"falling  sickness"  may  have  been  due  to  poison  (g).  It 
would  not  be  proper  to  say  that  every  case  of  sudden  death 
should  be  investigated.  Bracton,  indeed,  says  (/&)  and  his 
remark  is  in  ipsis  verbis  with  the  statute  of  4  Edward  I 
(*)  "where  one  is  slain  or  suddenly  dead."  They  mention 
as  the  means  of  coming  to  this  end,  wounding,  drowning 
and  strangling,  and  suggest  that  this  may  be  determined  by 
the  marks  upon  the  body.  There  is  absolutely  nothing  in 
the  statute  nor  in  Bracton  to  indicate  that  a  death  other- 
wise than  by  violence  at  the  hands  of  another  is  contem- 
plated except  the  unexplained  words  "suddenly  dead."  The 

(d)  Queen  v.  Clerk,  i  Salkeld,  377  (1702).    See  i  East's  Pleas  of 
the  Crown,  378. 

(e)  i   Blackstone's   Commentaries,  348,   citing  4  Inst.  271 ;   2  Ld. 
Raymond,   1305;  Welchmen's  Case,  Latch.  166   (1662);   s.  c.   Popham, 
209  (1656),  citing  6  Richard  II,  coron  f.  107;  2  Richard  III,  f.  2;  21 
Edward  IV,  f.  70,  and  see  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  Book  2, 
cap.  52. 

(/)  i  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  378.  In  opposition  to  this  view  we  find : 
"If  a  person  die  suddenly  tho  it  be  of  fever  and  the  township  bury 
him  before  sending  for  the  coroner  the  whole  township  shall  be 
amerced."  Itin  North  Coron  3,  19  note ;  2  Hale,  57.  But  this  case  is 
misprinted  and  Hale  says  he  himself  had  seen  the  transcript  at  large 
"which  in  libra  meo  f.  52b  is  morust  de  feynf,  i.  e.,  starved  by  hunger," 
and  the  coroner  need  not  be  sent  for  in  every  case,  but  only  if  the 
death  be  unnatural  or  violent,  2  H.  P.  C.  57;  and  Blackstone  says: 
"The  inquiry  must  be  made  in  all  cases  of  persons  coming  to  sudden 
or  violent  death,"  in  what  manner  soever  he  came  to  his  death,  4  Com- 
mentaries, 274.  And  Fleta  goes  to  considerable  length  to  tell  what  must 
be  done  in  case  a  man  die  by  misfortune,  lib.  i,  Cap.  25,  Sect.  9. 

(<?)  For  a  more  complete  discussion  of  this  point  see  Post,  Part 
II,  Chapter  VI. 

(h)   f.  I2lb. 

(»)    i  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  40  (1275). 


THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  CORONERS  59 

mind  at  once  reverts  to  the  possibilities  of  poisoning, 
Poisoning  is  not  referred  to  in  these  early  authorities,  but 
there  is  no  doubt  that  felonious  homicide  and  cases  which 
may  be  felonious  homicide,  should  be  inquired  of  by  the  cor- 
oner, and  it  would  seem  that  the  words  "suddenly  dead" 
covered  a  case  of  possible  poisoning.  The  Mirror  says  (k) 
the  inquest  is  to  be  taken  of  those  dead  by  "felony  or  mis- 
chance." We  have  here  a  ground  upon  which  Mr.  East's 
pernicious  theory  could  be  built.  One  who  dies  a  sudden 
and  unexplained  death  does  not  of  necessity  die  by  felony 
or  by  mischance.  It  might  be  said  then  that  where  one  died 
without  the  infliction  of  external  injuries  and  the  jury  re- 
turned a  verdict  of  natural  death,  the  inquest  was  improp- 
erly held.  At  the  time  which  we  are  considering  this  ques- 
tion was  of  little  importance,  it  was  only  when  in  after 
centuries,  the  unfortunate  system  of  the  compensation  of 
coroners  by  fees  per  inquest  had  been  installed,  that  the 
question  became  paramount.  Britton  says,  (/)  where  a 
"felony  or  misadventure  do  happen"  and  is  therefore  in  exact 
line  with  the  Mirror  as  to  this  proposition.  But  while  we 
must  admit  that  all  these  old  authorities  are  not  directly  op- 
posed to  Mr.  East's  theory,  it  is  worth  while  to  notice  that 
Mr.  East  is  the  first  to  suggest  that  "sudden"  death  is  not 
the  test  for  the  coroner's  action.  Besides,  it  is  not  the  duty 
of  the  coroner  to  act  until  called  upon  to  do  so  (m).  Per- 
haps the  true  rule  is  that  the  coroner  should  take  inquisitions 
of  "people  coming  to  an  untimely  end"  (n). 

It  has  been  said  that  when  the  coroner  was  notified  of 
an  untimely  death  he  was  to  hold  an  inquisition  on  the  body 
if  found  (0).  Our  curiosity  is  naturally  aroused  to  ask 
who  was  to  notify  the  coroner?  We  are  told  by  recent  visi- 
tors in  China,  that  in  Chinese  cities  crime  is  unusual  be- 


(k)  C.  i,  Sect.  13. 

(/)    C.  i,  Sect.  5. 

(m)  Supra,  note  (d). 

(n)  Gilbert's  Historical  View  of  the  Exchequer  80;  see  6  Viner's 
Abridgment,  246-7.  The  author's  objection  to  East  s  theory  is  that  it 
excludes  from  the  consideration  of  the  coroner  well  planned  murders 
which  look  like  natural  deaths. 

(0)  If  the  body  was  not  found  there  could  be  no  inquest.  Post, 
Sect.  45. 


60    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

cause  of  the  simple  and  almost  certain  method  of  detec- 
tion. The  cities  are  divided  into  precincts,  which  are  very 
small,  at  the  entrance  to  which  are  gates,  where  a  porter 
is  constantly  in  attendance.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  victim  of 
every  crime  but  murder,  to  raise  a  cry.  In  case  of  murder 
the  first  finders  raise  the  cry.  On  hearing  this  cry,  the 
porter  instantly  closes  the  gates  and  detains  every  one  in  the 
precinct  as  do  the  neighboring  porters.  As  soon  as  the 
police  arrive  they  investigate  the  enclosed  district  until  the 
criminal  is  produced  and  until  that  time  the  gates  remain 
closed.  Were  modern  American  criminal  methods  in  vogue 
in  China,  those  gates  would  be  in  danger  of  being  closed 
permanently,  but  our  informants  tell  us  the  criminal  is  al- 
ways produced.  A  very  similar  system  was  in  force  in 
early  times  in  England  (/>).  If  homicide  were  committed 
in  an  enclosed  town  by  day  or  by  night  or  in  any  other 
town  by  day  and  the  offender  were  not  caught,  the  town  or 
ville  was  amerced  and  if  it  were  not  sufficient  the  hundred 
and  even  the  county  (#).  The  enclosed  town  was  held  to 
closer  accountability  because  at  night  the  gates  were  supposed 
(qq}  to  be  shut  and  in  the  day  it  was  very  easy  to  shut  the 
gates  when  the  hue  and  cry  was  raised.  The  hue  and  cry 
ought  to  be  raised  in  an  unenclosed  town  as  well.  It  was 
the  duty  of  the  whole  town  to  pursue  the  criminal  and  so 
from  town  to  town  until  he  was  caught.  When  an  unnatural 
death  happened  it  was  the  duty  of  the  township  upon  pain 
of  amercement  to  notify  the  coroner  (r).  Not  only  must 

(/*)  See  Jervis  on  Coroners,  Chapter  X. 

(g)  Fitzherbert's  Abridgment  Coroners,  299;  3  Coke's  Institutes, 
53;  i  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  448-604;  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the 
Crown,  73 ;  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  c  12,  Sects.  2  and  3 ;  Um- 
f reville's  Lex  Coronatoris,  215 ;  3  Henry  VII,  c.  I.  But  Bracton  tells 
us  this  was  only  where  the  hue  and  cry  was  not  levied.  Bracton 
f  iiSb. 

(qq}  See  Milbourn's  Case,  7  Coke's  Reports,  6b  (1587)  ;  3  Ed- 
ward III,  Coron,  299;  2i  Edward  III,  coron.,  238.  In  the  former  case 
Lowther  J.  actually  did  amerce  a  town  because  a  burglar  was  not 
forthcoming. 

(r)  Burns  Justice  (25th  Edition),  786,  3  Edward  III,  coron.,  339. 
"If  the  township  leave  a  body  unburied  and  send  not  for  the  coroner  it 
shall  be  amercied  either  upon  a  presentement  by  the  grand  jury  or 
by  the  coroner" ;  and  see  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  57,  this  is  so 
whether  the  body  be  buried  or  suffered  to  putrify  unless  the  town- 
ship send  for  the  coroner,  Burn's  Justice,  supra.  But  Fitzherbert 


THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  CORONERS  61 

the  people  notify  the  coroner,  but  they  must  assist  him  to 
hold  the  inquisition.  It  was  the  duty  of  every  man  in  the 
town  where  the  death  occurred  to  be  present  at  the  inquest 
and  tell  all  he  knew  (s)  of  the  circumstances  of  the  death 
(ss).  The  body  must  be  left  for  the  coroner  and  his  jury 
to  view.  To  bury  the  body  without  sending  for  the  coroner 
was  an  indictable  offence  (/).  But  if  the  body  had  been 
buried  when  the  coroner  came  he  might  dig  it  up  (u),  pro- 
vided he  came  within  a  reasonable  time  after  the  body  was 
buried  (v),  and  fourteen  days  has  been  held  a  reasonable 
time  («;).  But  if  the  body  had  lain  buried  long  and 
(ww)  had  been  suffered  to  putrefy  (x}  so  that  to  disinter 
it  would  be  useless  (xx)  or  dangerous  to  the  community  (y) 
it  should  not  be  exhumed  and  the  coroner  should  hold  no 


Coroners,  329-339-421 ;  Male's  Summary,  171 ;  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the 
Crown,  51 ;  Lord  Buchhurst's  Case,  i  Keble,  278,  "and  it  is  the  duty  of 
all  persons  in  whose  houses  such  accidents  happen  to  give  immediate 
notice  to  the  proper  officer."  King  v.  Solgard,  Andrews,  231;  S.  C,  2; 
Strange,  1097  (1738)^  and  see  Itinerant  Northampton  Coron.,  319;  2 
Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  57,  and  Fleta,  Book  i,  c  25,  Sect.  3. 

(s)  The  word  "man"  is  not  used  generically,  from  the  nature  of 
woman  we  may  suppose  they  were  not  expected  to  tell  all  they  knew 
or  no  inquest  could  have  been  completed  until  the  female  witnesses 
were  dead. 

(«)  Fleta  Lib.,  I  Cap.  24,  Sect.  i. 

(/)  Queen  v.  Clerk,  i  Salkeld,  377,  pi.  2  s.  c.;  Holt,  167,  pi.  3 
(1702),  and  per  Holt,  "it  is  matter  indictable  to  bury  a  man  that  dies 
a  violent  death  before  the  coroner's  inquest  have  sat  upon  him.  Anony- 
mous, 7  Modern  10  (1702),  and  see  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown, 
c  9,  Sect.  23. 

(«)  Britton,  c  I,  Sect.  7;  2  Burn's  Justice,  29  (Edition  of  1845); 
Mirror,  c.  I,  Sect.  13;  2  Richard  III,  2a;  21  Edward  IV,  70-71;  Queen 
v.  Clerk,  i  Salkeld,  377  pi.  2,  s.  c. ;  Holt,  167  (1702)  ;  Rex  v.  Stukeley, 
Holt,  167  (1701);  Brooke's  Abridgment  Coron.,  p.  121,  166,  167,  173; 
Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  51 ;  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown, 
58-59;  Hale's  Summary,  170;  2  Hawkins's,  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c.  9,  23; 
Jervis  on  Coroners,  5  and  6;  but  he  should  record  the  fact  in  order 
that  the  township  may  be  amercied;  Jervis,  5  and  6;  Mirror,  c.  I,  Sect. 
13 ;  Britton,  c.  I,  Sect  7. 

(v)  Queen  v.  Clerk  (supra). 

(w)  2  Richard  III,  2a;  Jenkins,  162  pi.  8;  Carthew,  72;  in  Brooke's 
Abridgment  Coroners,  pi.  166  and  21  Edward  IV,  70-71,  it  is  said  40 
days  is  a  reasonable  time,  while  seven  months  has  been  held  too  long 
a  period;  Rex  v.  Bond,  i  Strange,  22  (1717) ;  Queen  v.  Clerk  (supra)  ; 
Rex  v.  Solgard  (supra)  ;  I  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  414. 

(ww)  Rex  v.  Bond,  I  Strange  22,  (1717);  King  v.  Parker,  2 
Levinz,  141,  (1675). 

(x)  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  Book  2,  cap.  52. 

(**)  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c.  9,  Sec.  23. 

(y)  Queen  v.  Clerk,  i  Salkeld,  377,  pi.  2  (1702). 


62    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

inquest  he  was  without  authority,  unless  he  had  a  special 
commission  (yy).  Perhaps  the  better  practice  was  to  obtain 
leave  of  court  before  digging  the  body  up  (z).  This  was 
essential  if  the  return  was  quashed  (a)  the  body  having  been 
buried  after  inquisition  held.  The  judges  must  exercise  their 
discretion,  however,  in  granting  this  commission  (6).  Of 
course  if  the  body  could  not  be  found  there  could  be  no  in- 
quest as  we  shall  see  later  (c).  In  that  case,  however,  the 
community  was  not  without  relief.  There  were  several 
methods  by  which  the  matter  could  be  investigated ;  the  jus- 
tices of  Oyer  and  Terminer  might  enquire  (d)  or  the  justices 
of  the  peace  (e}  the  King's  Bench  might  appoint  a  special 
commission  to  enquire  (/)  or  the  grand  jury  might  inquire 
(g)  but  these  are  not  inquests 


(yy)  Kale's  Summary,  170;  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown, 
c.  9,  Sect.  23;  Anonymous,  i  Ventris  352  (1680).  But  with  a  com- 
mission he  may  take  it,  Foxley's  Case,  5  Coke's  Reports,  no  (1601)  ;  2 
Rolle's  Abridgment,  92;  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  58  and  if  he 
holds  the  view  that  under  these  circumstances  (putrefaction)  without 
getting  leave  of  court  it  is  in  the  discreton  of  the  King's  Bench 
whether  they  will  receive  it  or  not,  Rex  v.  Causey,  B.  R.,  1717,  Mss. 
reported  in  2  Bacon's  Abridgment,  429. 

(z)  Berkley's  Case,  2  Siderfen,  90  (1658)  ;  Queen  v.  Clerk,  i  Sal- 
keld,  377,  pi.  2  (1702)  ;  Comyn's  Digest,  Title  Officer,  G.  n,  if  he  take 
the  inquisition  so  long  after  the  death  as  to  be  of  no  use  the  court 
will  refuse  to  receive  or  file  it.  Rex  v.  Bond,  I  Strange,  22  (1717)  ; 
2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c  9,  Sect.  24.  Indeed,  he  may  be 
amercied  for  taking  up  a  body  which  had  been  buried  so  long  as  to 
be  so  decomposed  that  nothing  could  be  gained,  Rex  v.  Parker,  2  Le- 
vinz,  140  (1675). 

(a)  Rex  v.  Saunders,  i  Strange,  167;  Anonymous,  i  Strange,  533 
(1723).  For  not  only  could  the  coroner  disinter  a  body  to  take  an  in- 
quest, but  to  take  a  good  one  when  the  first  was  void  for  any  reason ; 
see  21  Edward  IV,  7ob ;  2  Richard  III,  pi.  2-5 ;  Staundeford's  Pleas  of 
the  Crown,  51 ;  Brooke's  Abridgment  Coroners,  167. 

(&)  Queen  v.  Clerk,  i  Salkeld,  377,  pi.  2  (1702)  ;  Rex  v.  Bond, 
i  Strange,  22  (1717)  ;  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c.  9,  Sect.  23. 

(c)  Post,  Sect.  45,  note  (d). 

(<f)  Stanlack's  Case,  i  Ventris,  182,  s.  c. ;  i  Modern  82  (1671); 
i  East's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  379 ;  i  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c 
27,  Sects.  12  and  13  (i  Burroughs  17). 

(e)  i  East  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  379;  i  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the 
Crown,  c.  27,  Sects.  12  and  13. 

(/)   Stanlack's  Case,  I  Ventris,  182;  i  Modern,  82  (1671). 

(fir)  Anonymous,  i  Ventris,  352   (1680). 

(ft)  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c  9,  Sect.  23,  and  is  there- 
fore traversable. 


THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  CORONERS  63 

Another  branch  of  the  coroners'  power  in  this  regard 
was  that  of  holding  inquests  over  those  who  die  in  prison 
(t).  The  coroner  must  hold  inquisitions  upon  all  who  die 
in  prison  (&).  This  statement  is  to  be  taken  literally.  It 
was  the  duty  of  the  coroner  to  take  inquests  on  the  bodies 
of  every  one  who  died  in  prison,  not  only  on  those  on  whom 
an  inquest  should  otherwise  be  held  (m),  but  also  on  those 
who  died  a  natural  death  or  by  execution,  (which  seems  at 
first  blush  a  natural  death  for  one  to  die  in  prison).  The 
reasons  given  for  this  rule  are  various.  Lord  Hale  says  it  is 
because  if  the  gaolor  "mistreats"  his  prisoner  so  that  he  dies 
it  is  murder  («),  but  that  fails  to  explain  why  the  coroner 
should  take  an  inquest  upon  those  who  are  executed.  Haw- 
kins says  that  it  is  because  of  the  person  who  died  in  prison 
were  suffered  to  putrefy  or  were  buried  without  an  inquest 
the  gaoler  or  in  his  default  the  township  would  be  amerced 
(0),  but  that  is  a  truism.  If  the  death  happens  in  the 
King's  Bench,  the  coroner  thereof,  who  is  clerk  of  the  Crown 
is  to  view  the  body  (/>). 

Sect.  35.  It  is  a  matter  of  doubt  whether  a  coroner 
could  take  an  inquisition  other  than  for  the  death  of  a  man 
(g).  Hale  tells  us  rather  doubtfully  that  he  can  and  states 
the  cases  to  be  these : 


(»')  Ante,  Fleta,  Book  i,  c.  26,  Sect.  3. 

(£)  Fleta,  Book  i,  c  26,  Sect.  3.  Stephen's  Digest  of  Criminal 
Procedure,  Article,  210;  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  47;  Fitz- 
herbert's  Abridgment,  421 ;  3  Coke's  Institutes,  52-91 ;  Brooke's  Abridg- 
ment Coroners,  168;  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  57;  4  Blackstone's 
Commentaries,  274. 

(w)  "If  a  man  be  taken  by  process  and  after  die  in  prison,  the 
coroner  ought  to  see  him,  which  ought  to  be  returned  by  the  sheriff  to 
the  court."  6  Viner's  Abridgment,  245,  citing  Brook's  Abridgment,  p. 
1167. 

(n)  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  57,  and  he  takes  his  authority 
from  Fleta,  Book  I,  c.  26,  Sect.  3. 

(0)  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c  9,  Sect.  23,  citing  Fitz- 
herbert's  Abridgment  Coroners,  329,  339,  421 ;  Staundeford's  Pleas  of 
the  Crown,  51 ;  Lord  Buchhurst's  Case,  i  Keble,  278.  Perhaps  it  is 
from  this  remark  that  Burns  has  concluded  that  if  the  body  of  any  is 
suffered  to  putrify,  the  gaoler  is  to  be  amercied,  supra,  note  (r),  Fleta, 
Book  i,  c  26,  Sect.  3;  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c  52. 

(/>)  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  57-58;  3  Edward  III,  Coron.,  292; 
8  Edward  II,  Coron.  421. 

(q)  But  every  inquest  of  death  which  ends  in  a  verdict  of  felony 
necessarily  includes  an  inquest  concerning  the  lands,  goods  and  chat- 


64    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

I.  de  thesauro  invento;  2,  of  wreck  and  royal  fish  and 
3,  it  seems  he  had  power  to  attach  persons  who  had  danger- 
ously wounded  another  (r).  In  this  statement  he  implicitly 
relies  on  the  statute  of  fourth  Edward  I.  The  more  usual 
and  better  founded  statement  is  that  as  the  sheriff  in  his 
torn  might  inquire  of  all  felonies  except  the  death  of  a  man 
so  the  coroner  could  only  inquire  of  the  death  of  man  (.$•). 
The  two  propositions  are  not  mutually  exclusive  for  treasure 
trove,  royal  fish  and  wreck  of  the  sea  are  not  felonies.  Coke 
tries  to  harmonize  the  two  views  by  saying  that  the  coroner 
shall  inquire  of  no  felony  but  death,  but  he  shall  inquire  "of 
the  escape  of  the  murderer  (t),  of  treasure  trove,  of  deod- 
ands  and  of  wreck  of  the  sea"  (w). 

It  must  be  remembered  that  the  coroner's  power  to  re- 
ceive an  appeal  and  to  take  an  inquest  are  two  entirely  dif- 
ferent things.  The  confusion  over  the  power  of  the  coroner 
to  take  inquests  other  than  death  may  have  arisen  from  a 
confusion  of  his  power  to  receive  appeals  with  his  power  to 
take  inquests  (v).  According  to  Staundeford  he  had  no 
power  to  take  any  indictment  except  for  the  death  of  a  man 
(«;).  But  while  Hale  and  Staundeford  speak  doubtfully 
of  his  power  to  take  inquests  other  than  for  the  death  of 


tels  forfeited  thereby  and  every  inquest  of  death  necessarily  includes 
an  inquest  concerning  the  depdand  which  may  have  accrued  to  the 
King  and  Lord  of  the  franchise,  i  Blackstone's  Commentaries,  348. 

(r)  2  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  66;  see  Fleta  Lib.  I,  cap.  25,  Sect.  15; 
in  Sect.  14,  Fleta  says  he  may  do  the  same  in  cases  of  rape. 

(j)  And  that  only  super  visum  corporis,  27  Assize,  55;  35  Henry 
VI,  27-b;  Fitzherbert's  Abridgment  Coroners,  206;  Staundeford's 
Pleas  of  the  Crown,  51 ;  Brooke's  Abridgment  Appeals  III,  2  Coke's 
Institutes  147,  4  Coke's  Institutes,  271 ;  2  Kale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  88; 
Kale's  Summary,  171 ;  Umf  reville's  Lex  Coronatoris  XXVIII ;  2  Haw- 
kins's Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c  9,  Sect.  34;  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the 
Crown,  c  52,  says  he  can  only  inquire  of  the  death  of  a  man. 

(0  The  inquiry  whether  fugam  fecit  was  a  necessary  part  of  the 
inquest  of  murder,  Post,  Sect.  58. 

(w)  4  Coke's  Institutes,  271. 

(v )  As  to  his  power  to  receive  appeals,  see  Post,  Sect.  36. 

(w)  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  51,  relying  on  35  Henry 
VI,  fol.  27,  Neaham  J.,  and  see  2  Coke's  Institutes,  147;  4  Coke's  In- 
stitutes, 271 ;  2  Kale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  65 ;  Kale's  Summary  171 ;  2 
Bacon's  Abridgment  430,  "notwithstanding  Magna  Carta"  says  Coke,  2 
Institutes,  32.  But  in  Northumberland  he  inquires  of  many  other 
felonies  by  special  custom. 


THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  CORONERS  65 

a  man  (JF)  and  Coke  denies  it  (3;),  Hawkins  is  strongly  of 
the  opinion  that  he  has  such  a  power,  relying  on  the  statute 
of  fourth  Edward  I,  and  on  Britton  to  prove  he  had  it,  and 
adding  that  it  has  never  been  taken  away  (yy). 

The  suggestion  has  been  made  that  the  coroner  ought 
to  inquire  into  arsons  and  fires. 

This  is  so  wide  a  power  that  perhaps  it  is  wise  to  con- 
sider the  basis  upon  which  these  conflicting  views  rest. 

The  view  that  the  coroner  has  no  such  power  rests 
upon  two  reported  decisions  and  upon  the  opinions  of  sev- 
eral writers.  In  27  Assize,  55  "a  coroner  entered  his  in- 
dictments in  the  King's  Bench,  that  a  certain  man  taken  for 
felony  was  conducted  to  a  church  by  certain  friars  and  that 
they  might  be  arrested  and  because  the  coroner  has  no  right 
to  receive  an  indictment  unless  on  the  body  being  present  or 
by  the  command  of  a  writ"  (2}  a  writ  was  issued  to  the 
coroner  to  certify  whether  he  had  any  other  warrant  or 
not. 

There  is  a  case  in  the  year  book  (35  Henry  VI,  33b,  pi. 
276)  which  is  purely  obiter.  Needham,  ].  said:  "For  I 
say  that  coroners  have  power  to  inquire  of  no  felony,  ex- 
cept of  the  death  of  a  man;  again  in  Northumberland  cor- 
oners have  power  to  inquire  of  all  felonies,  etc.,  by  custom." 

Perhaps  the  annotater  nearest  in  point  of  time  to  these 
decisions  is  Staundeford  (a)  who  assures  us  in  his  Pleas  of 
the  Crown  (fr)  that  the  coroner  has  no  power  to  take  in- 
quests except  for  the  death  of  a  man.  Brooke  cites  the 
case  in  27  Assize  with  approbation  in  Le  Graunde  Abridg- 


(*)  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  51 ;  2  Kale's  Pleas  of  the 
Crown,  65 ;  Hale's  Summary,  171. 

(y)  2  Institutes,  147;  4  Institutes,  271. 

(yy)  2  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c.  9,  Sect.  35,  citing  Britton  f3,  and  4 
Edward  I,  Sect.  2. 

(a)  See  the  very  interesting  article  by  Sherston  Baker,  12  Law 
Magazine  and  Review,  248,  wherein  he  tries  to  prove  that  the  coroner 
has  power  to  hold  inquests  in  such  cases.  He  sets  aside  the  opinions 
of  Coke,  Hale  and  Comyns  as  founded  upon  improper  information 
and  of  no  weight  and  annotates  the  Statute  of  4  Edward  I  exten- 
sively. 

(a)  A.  D.  1583,  Fleta  wrote  before  these  decisions. 

(&)  Page  51. 


66    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

ment  (c)  Lord  Coke  in  his  Institutes  twice  (d)  affirms  the 
previous  view  relying  solely  on  the  two  cases  above  referred 
to.  Lord  Hale  follows  suit  in  his  Pleas  of  the  Crown  (e) 
and  Summary  (/).  The  learned  Viner  (g)  and  Chief  Baron 
Comyns  (h)  are  both  of  the  same  opinion. 

To  oppose  this  complete  chain  of  legal  classics,  of  the 
weight  of  whose  links  we  will  speak  later,  we  have  the 
opinions  of  Bracton,  Fleta,  Britton  and  the  Mirror  and 
the  apocryphal  statute  of  fourth  Edward  I.  We  find  that 
all  five  authorities  assert  that  the  coroner  may  inquire  of 
wounding  (»').  Bracton  and  the  statute  add  house  break- 
ing (&).  Fleta  adds  rape  (/),  Britton  adds  prison  breach 
to  this  (nt)  while  the  Mirror  (mm)  though  omitting  to  name 
the  latter  two  felonies  specifically  states  that  the  coroner 
may  inquire  of  arson  "and  other  felonies."  Upon  the 
strength  of  these  early  authorities  and  the  weakness  of  the 
cases  upon  which  the  opposite  doctrine  rests,  Hawkins 
bases  a  strong  argument  to  the  effect  that  the  coroner  may 
still  inquire  of  rape  and  prison  breach.  The  case  in  27 
Assize  he  tells  us  is  really  a  question  as  to  the  coroners' 
power  to  inquire  of  accessories  after  the  fact  while  the  one  in 
thirty-fifth  Henry  VI  is  purely  obiter  (w).  Hale  explains  the 
case  in  thirty-fifth  Henry  VI  by  saying  that  in  Northumber- 
land the  coroner  has  power  to  inquire  of  other  felonies  (nn) 


(c)  A.  D.  1786,  Title  Indictment,  pi.  29. 

(rf)  2  Institutes,  147;  4  Institutes,  271. 

(e)  Vol.  2,  pp.  65-88. 

(/)  P.  i?i. 

(0)  6  Abridgment,  245. 

(A)  Digest  Title  Officer,  G.  9. 

(0  4  Edward  I,  Sect,  i,  supra,  Bracton  f.  I2ib;  Fleta  Lib.  i  Cap. 
25,  Sect.  15;  Britton,  Chap.  I,  Sects.  5-39;  Mirror,  Chapt.  I,  Sect.  13. 
Britton  even  directs  what  is  to  be  inquired  in  such  a  case,  Chapt.  i, 
Sec.  39. 

(*)  Bracton,  f  i2ib;  4  Edward  I,  Sect.  i. 

(/)  Lib.  i,  cap.  25,  Sect.  14. 

(m)  Britton,  c  i,  Sects.  5-38,  the  latter  section  even  directs  what 
shall  be  inquired  in  an  inquest  of  rape,  i.  e.,  the  force,  the  felony,  pre- 
sumptive signs  such  as  effusion  of  blood,  and  clothes  torn.  Fleta  also 
mentions  rape  and  goes  to  considerable  length  as  to  the  coroner's  duties 
in  this  regard  Lib.  i,  cap.  25,  Sect.  14,  he  tells  us  those  guilty  are  to  be 
attached  without  bail. 

(mm)  Chapter  i,  Sect.  13. 


THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  CORONERS  67 

and  such  it  seems  is  the  case  (0).  It  seems  possible  that  the 
statute  of  fourth  Edward  I  may  be  right  as  to  the  powers 
of  coroners  and  that  these  powers  were  lost  by  degrees  in 
the  realm  generally  while  they  were  retained  by  special  cus- 
tom in  Northumberland.  Such  an  explanation  would  recon- 
cile the  position  of  Britton,  Fleta,  Bracton  and  the  Mirror 
with  that  of  Coke,  Hale  and  Comyns.  Coburn,  C.  J.  in  a 
recent  case  in  England  summarized  the  whole  situation  (/>). 
He  says  "we  have  the  authority  of  three  of  the  greatest 
writers  who  have  expounded  and  illustrated  the  law  of 
England  for  saying  that  the  office  of  coroner  with  reference 
to  felonies  is  limited  to  cases  of  homicide  on  view  of  the 
body.  Lord  Coke  and  Lord  Hale  in  clear  and  distinct  terms 
lay  down  that  as  law  and  it  is  adopted  by  Comyns,  C.  B.  in 
his  last  digest  without  the  expression  of  any  doubt  on  his 
part.  These  three  authorities  are  sufficient  in  the  absence 
of  statutory  enactments  to  the  contrary  to  establish  any 
proposition  of  law." 

But  whether  or  not  the  coroner  had  power  to  inquire 
of  felonies  other  than  death  there  are  certain  matters  to 
which  his  jurisdiction  beyond  doubt  extended.  It  is  rea- 
sonably certain  he  had  power  to  inquire  of  treasure  trove 
(q).  Comyns  makes  a  doubt  of  this  and  says  he  has  power 
to  attach  persons  suspected  of  treasure  trove  (r).  But  the 
older  authorities  are  undoubted.  Of  wreck  of  the  sea,  he 
might  inquire  (j)  and  of  royal  fish — sturgeons  and  whales, 

(n)  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c.  9,  Sect.  35. 

(n«)  2  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  66. 

(o)  The  statute  of  fourth  Edward  I  certainly  was  construed  in 
Northumberland  and  in  certain  other  portions  of  England  to  give 
a  wider  jurisdiction  than  that  usually  conceded,  78  Law  Times,  332. 
But  the  case  of  Regina  v.  Herford,  3  Ellis  &  Ellis,  115  s.  c.,  6  Jurist 
(N.  S.)  750;  20  L.  J.  Q.  B.,  249,  excluded  this  special  jurisdiction. 

(f>)  Regina  v.  Herford    (supra). 

(q)  Bracton,  f  I2ib,  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c  52; 
Fleta  Liber,  I,  cap.  25,  Sects,  i  and  n ;  4  Edward  I,  Sect,  i,  supra;  Mir- 
ror, c  i,  Sect.  13;  Britton,  c  I,  Sects.  5-42,  and  this  power  has  not  be- 
come extinct ;  it  was  exercised  as  recently  as  Regina  v.  Thomas,  Leigh 
&  Cave,  313  (1863),  and  see  Stephen's  Digest  of  Criminal  Procedure, 
Articles  20-228,  for  the  modern  English  Practice  and  see  2  Hawkins's 
Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c  9,  Sect.  36;  i  Blackstone's  Commentaries,  349. 

(r)  Comyns  Digest  Title  Officer,  G.  9,  and  see  I  Blackstone's 
Commentaries,  349. 

(j)  And  see  that  it  is  valued  and  delivered  to  the  town  and 
this  by  the  statute  of  4  Edward  I,  Sect.  I  (3  Edward  I,  Sect.  4),  and 


68    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

(/)  but  possibly  his  powers  as  to  royal  fish  do  not  extend 
to  holding  an  inquisition. 

Sect.  36.  "His  third  power"  says  Lord  Hale,  («)  is 
to  take  the  accusations  of  an  approver"  (v).  With  due 
respect  to  so  great  an  authority  the  proposition  is  not  broad 
enough,  the  duty  of  the  coroner  in  this  respect  is  to  receive 
appeals  (w).  His  power  to  receive  appeals  of  approvers 
was  broader  than  that  as  to  other  appeals  (ww),  for  while 
his  authority  to  receive  other  appeals  extended  only  to  his 
own  county,  he  could  receive  the  appeals  of  an  approver 
concerning  a  felony  committed  in  any  county  (x).  But 
even  on  this  point  all  authorities  do  not  agree  (y}.  It  is 
certain  that  as  to  appeals  in  general  he  may  only  take  the 
appeal  where  the  felony  was  committed  in  his  county  (s) 
and  the  reason  given,  viz.  :  that  the  felony  may  only  be  tried 
in  the  county  where  it  was  committed  applies,  if  it  applies  at 
all,  with  equal  force  to  appeals  of  approvers  as  to  any  other 
appeal  (a).  He  could  receive  appeals  for  murder 


see  Mirror,  c.  i,  Sect.  13;  Comyns'  Digest  Title  Officer,  G.  10,  to  in- 
quire whether  wreck  or  not  and  certify  the  same  and  who  is  in  pos- 
session of  the  goods,  i  Blackstone's  Commentaries,  349. 

(f)  Britton,  c.  i,  Sect.  42,  where  it  is  said  the  finders  both  of  royal 
fish  and  treasure  are  to  be  let  to  mainprize,  but  note  there  can  be  no 
concealment  of  treasure  trove  until  it  appear  by  the  coroners  inquest 
that  there  is  treasure  which  has  been  trove  ;  Umf  reville  note  to  Sect. 
42,  supra.  See  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c.  52. 

(«)  2  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  67. 

(v)  Lord  Hale  thus  defines  an  approver  (see  2  P.  C.,  67). 

(w)  Bracton,  ff  122,  147,  Fleta,  Book  i  c,  25;  Britton  f  5,  Mir- 
ror, c  i,  Sect.  13;  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  64;  22  Assize,  97, 
98;  Finch,  321. 

(ww)  The  case  of  an  appeal  by  an  approver  differs  from  an  ap- 
peal of  a  person  grieved,  5  Henry  V  Coron.,  437;  29  Edward  III,  42 
Coron.,  462;  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  53. 

(*)  29  Edward  III,  42  Coron.,  462;  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown, 
67  ;  but  the  appeal  of  a  felony  or  treason  out  of  the  county  must  be 
certified  to  the  justices  of  goal  delivery  and  they  make  process  into 
any  country  in  England  to  take  the  person  appealed,  5  Henry  V  Coron., 
437;  29  Edward  III,  42;  Coron,  462;  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown, 
53- 

(y)  Some  make  no  exceptions,  Staundeford  f.  52b,  53,  633,  2 
Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  67;  Hale's  Summary,  171-172;  Fitzherbert's 
Abridgment,  437. 

(*)  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  52b,  53-63;  2  Hale's  Pleas 
of  the  Crown,  67-68;  Summary,  172;  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown, 
c  9,  Sect.  43. 

(a)  Hawkins  undertakes  to  explain  this  by  saying  "but  he  may 
receive  the  appeal  of  an  approver  or  take  the  adjuration  of  one  who 
acknowledges  a  felony  done  by  him  in  any  county  for  after  such  con- 


THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  CORONERS  69 

larceny  (bb),  rape  (c),  robbery  (d},  de  plagis  (e)  and  may- 
hem (/).  The  appeal  was  received  by  the  coroner  and  re- 
corded in  his  roll,  he  then  required  pledges  of  the  appellor  to 
prosecute  (g)  and  of  the  appellee  for  his  appearance  (h)  or 
in  more  serious  cases  committed  the  appellee  to  the  cus- 
tody of  the  sheriff  (i).  But  the  appellee  did  not  appear 
before  the  coroner  the  appeal  was  recorded  in  his 
absence,  though  whether  the  coroners  could  do 
more  remains  in  doubt.  Outlawry  proceedings  were 
then  in  order.  Lord  Hale  tells  us  the  coroner 
should  issue  a  precept  to  the  sheriff  (fc).  Coke  says  he 
shall  proceed  no  further  than  entry  of  the  appeal  and  shall 
then  deliver  it  to  the  justices  (/).  Hawkins  tells  us 
that  he  had  power  to  proceed  thereon  to  outlawry  against 
an  appellee  (w).  This  opinion  he  evidently  draws  from 
Britton  who  goes  at  length  into  the  powers  of  the  coroner 
in  outlawry  upon  appeals  (w).  One  coroner  could  receive 
appeals  (o),  though  the  sheriff  usually  sat  with  the  coroner 


fession  there  need  be  no  trial,"  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c.  9. 
Sect.  40,  and  see  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c  52. 

(&)  4  Edward  I,  3. 

(bb)  Britton,  c  i,  Sect.  43. 

(c)  Bracton,  f  122;  4  Edward  I,  Sect.  3;  Britton,  c  I,  Sect.  43. 

(d)  4  Edward   I,   Sect.  3;   Britton,  c  I,   Sect.  43;   Staundeford's 
Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c  52. 

(e}  4  Edward  I,  Sect.  3;  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c  52. 

(/)  4  Edward  I,  Sect.  3,  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c  52. 

(g)  Britton,  c  i,  Sect.  16,  and  he  must  prosecute  within  a  year 
and  a  d,ay,  ibid.  The  pledges  are  taken  to  the  sheriff  of  the  county 
in  whose  bailiwick  the  felony  was  committed. 

(h)  4  Edward  I,  Sect.  3;  Britton,  c  I,  Sect.  18,  two  pledges  or  in 
case  of  rape  and  some  other  felonies  where  they  are  aggravated,  six. 

(i)  4  Edward  I,  Sect.  3. 

(k)  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  67-68;  but  if  he  be  a  coroner 
of  a  franchise  it  must  go  to  the  sheriff,  not  to  the  bailiff  of  the  fran- 
chise, for  he  can  only  execute  process  within  the  franchise,  29  Edward 
III,  42,  Coron.,  462;  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  68. 

(/)  2  Coke's  Institutes,  32;  Comyns  Digest  Title  Officer,  G.  5. 

(m)  2  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c  9,  Sect.  43,  yet  it  is  certain  he  cannot 
award  process  against  an  appellee  in  a  foreign  county  the  justices  of 
gaol  delivery  does  that,  Fitzherbert's  Abridgment  Coroner,  462.  Staun- 
deford's Pleas  of  the  Crown,  53-73 ;  Hale's  Summary,  172 ;  29  Edward 
III,  42- 

(«)  Chapter  I,  Sects.  18,  19,  20,  21,  22. 

(o)   14  Henry  IV,  34. 


70    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

(/>),  they  forming  the  coroner's  court  (q).  Some  author- 
ities tell  us  that  the  coroner  was  the  sole  judge  of  this 
court  (r). 

Sect.  37.  Outlawry  goes  back  to  the  most  primitive 
period  of  Teutonic  history,  to  the  laws  of  the  tribesmen  be- 
fore they  had  come  to  be  identified  with  specific  territory  (s). 
This  might  lead  us  to  the  conclusion  that  the  coroner's  office 
was  a  Saxon  institution  and  not  a  Norman  one  (/),  were  it 
not  for  the  fact  that  the  earliest  traces  of  the  office  of  coroner 
show  no  signs  of  this  feature  of  its  power. 

The  pronunciation  of  the  judgment  of  outlawry  was 
long  per  judicium  coronatorum  (w).  It  being  the  duty  of 
the  coroner  to  be  present  at  the  county  court  to  pronounce 
the  judgment  of  outlawry  upon  the  exigent  after  quintus 
exactus  at  the  fifth  couny  court  if  the  defendant  did  not  ap- 
pear (v).  At  common  law  the  coroner  could  try  and  out- 
law but  under  Chapter  17  of  Magna  Carta  he  can  neither 
try  nor  outlaw  (w).  He  could  still  award  an  exigent,  how- 
ever, (x}  and  pronounce  the  judgment  of  outlawry  (xx~). 
Upon  the  inquisition  of  one  coroner  process  lies  to  outlawry 
(y)  but  quare  if  the  coroner  could  issue  process  of  out- 
lawry (2}.  Hale  says  "but  now  it  is  different  (since  Magna 
Carta)  the  coroner  doth  not  proceed  to  outlawry  but  cer- 

(/>)  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c  9,  Sect.  39. 

(q)  See  Post,  Sect.  40. 

(r)  2  Coke's  Institutes,  176;  4  Henry  VI,  i6b,  2  Hawkins's  Pleas 
of  the  Crown,  c.  9,  Sect.  39,  contra;  17  Assize,  5 ;  Brooke's  Abridgment 
Title  Appeal,  56;  Staundeford's  Plea  of  the  Crown,  52,  64;  Hale's 
Summary,  171. 

(j)  Forsythe  Trial  by  Jury  45. 

(0  See  ante,  Chapter  I. 

(«)  Gilbert's  Historical  View  of  the  Exchequer,  80;  Britton,  c  I, 
Sect.  4. 

(v)  Wood's  Institutes,  b  i,  c  i ;  Jervis  on  Coroners,  50. 

(«/)  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  66. 

(*)  22  Assize,  97;  Fitzherbert's  Abridgment  Title  Coroners,  184; 
Mirror,  c  I,  Sect.  13;  contra  Brooke's  Abridgment  Title  Appeal,  82; 
Quere,  Ibid  108,  accord  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  64;  2  Hale's 
Pleas  of  the  Crown,  67;  Hale's  Summary,  171;  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of 
the  Crown,  c  9,  Sect.  41. 

(xx)  Supra  note  (x)  but  the  Mayor  of  London  does  not  though 
coroner  pronounce  sentences  of  outlawry,  the  Recorder  does;  City  of 
London's  Case,  8  Coke's  Reports,  i2ib,  I26a  (1610). 

(y)  Frenche's  Case,  2  Leonard,  200  (1584). 

(2)  27  Assize,  47,  where  a  man  was  indicted  before  the  coroner 
and  upon  that  was  outlawed  by  the  coroners. 


THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  CORONERS  71 

tifies  it  to  the  next  gaol  delivery  who  are  to  proceed  against 
the  offenders  if  they  are  in  the  gaol  and  if  not  to  certify  it 
into  the  King's  Bench  who  proceed  to  outlawry.  The  judg- 
ment of  outlawry  must  be  entered  by  two  coroners  (a). 

Outlawry  is  a  punishment  inflicted  on  a  person  who  is 
guilty  of  a  contempt  and  contumacy  by  refusing  to  be  amen- 
able to  and  abide  by  the  justice  of  that  court  which  has  law- 
ful authority  to  call  him  before  it.  As  this  is  a  crime  of  the 
highest  nature,  being  an  act  of  rebellion  against  the  state 
and  community  of  which  the  offender  is  a  member  it  sub- 
jects him  to  heavy  forfeiture  and  disabilities  (b)  and  there- 
fore the  consequences  being  so  highly  penal  the  greatest 
particularity  is  required  in  the  proceeding  and  the  slight- 
est irregularity  will  be  fatal  (c). 

The  execution  of  the  process  of  outlawry  belongs  es- 
pecially to  the  office  of  sheriff  (rf). 

If  after  the  preliminary  proceedings  (?)  have  been 
regularly  had  the  defendant  does  not  appear  nor  is  taken  on 
or  before  the  fifth  county  court  or  day  of  exaction  under 
the  writ  of  exigent,  judgment  of  outlawry  or  if  a  woman  of 
waiver  is  given  by  the  coroners  or  one  of  them.  For  this 
purpose  one  of  the  coroners  must  be  personally  present  at 
the  county  court  (/).  If  he  fail  to  attend  he  is  liable  to  fine 
and  imprisonment  (g). 

The  calling  upon  the  exigent  may  be  by  one  coroner  and 

(a)  Brooke's  Abridgment  Title  Process,  pi.  172;  14  Henry  IV,  p. 
34,  but  where  there  is  only  one  in  the  county  he  can  act  alone,  Jenkins, 
85,  pi.  65,  one  is  sufficient  to  enter  the  judgment  (for  which  see  Brae- 
ton  Retorn  de  Briefs,  pi.  42  and  14  Henry  IV,  34),  but  all  should 
make  the  entry  Ibid.  And  the  judgment  of  two  is  good  enough  though 
there  are  four  in  the  county  but  all  should  join  in  the  entry,  4  Ed- 
ward FV,  43;  and  if  there  are  two  coroners  in  the  county  the  judg- 
ment of  outlawry  must  be  given  by  both.  Hobart,  70;  i  Hale's  Pleas 
of  the  Crown,  417.  But  Bacon  raises  a  quere  whether  the  act  of  one 
coroner  is  not  sufficient  even  where  more  than  one  should  act,  2 
Abridgment,  433. 

(&)  Coke  upon  Littleton,  128;  2  Rolle's  Abridgment,  802;  Doctor 
and  Student  Dialogue,  2,  Chap.  8. 

(c)  Jervis  on  Coroners,  51. 

(d)  Watson's  Sheriff,  Chapter,  8. 

(?)  For  a  careful  and  concise  statement  of  just  how  these  pro- 
ceedings are  taken,  see  Britton,  c  i,  Sects.  18,  19,  20,  21  and  22. 

(/)  Britton,  c  14,  Sect.  2. 

(0)  Jervis  on  Coroners,  51;  Anonymous,  Noy,  113  (1605);  see, 
however,  Rastell's  Entries,  586. 


72    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

the  judgment  may  be  pronounced  by  one,  but  the  entry  and 
return  must  be  in  the  name  of  all  (/»).  It  has  been  said  that 
the  names  of  the  coroners  must  be  subscribed  to  the  judg- 
ment of  outlawry  (*'),  but  they  need  not  so  appear  upon 
the  record  of  the  outlawry  (k)  if  their  names  are  stated 
(/),  for  it  will  suffice  if  by  the  record  the  judgement  appear  to 
have  been  pronounced  by  the  coroners.  In  order  that  the 
judgment  may  appear  from  the  record  to  have  been  pro- 
nounced by  the  coroners,  their  name  of  office  must  be  stated 
upon  the  record  (m)  and  if  it  be  not,  the  judgment  will  be 
erroneous,  except  in  London  where  the  judgment  is  given  by 
the  recorder  in  which  case  the  mayor  who  is  coroner  need  not 
be  named  (n). 

Having  pronounced  the  judgment  the  coroners  are 
functi  officio,  the  exigent  with  the  proceedings  thereon  and 
the  judgment  of  outlawry  being  returned  by  the  sheriff  (0). 
.  It  would  appear  from  some  authorities  (p)  that  a  cor- 
oner upon  an  inquisition  found  before  him  might  award 
process  of  outlawry;  but  this  is  doubted  by  Lord  Hale  (q) 
and  we  find  no  instance  in  comparatively  modern  times  of 
such  a  course  having  been  adopted  by  a  coroner.  If  the 
offender  be  taken  he  is  committed  to  jail  pursuant  to  the 
statute  de  officio  conoratoris,  but  if  he  be  not  found  the  cor- 
oner returns  his  inquisition  to  the  next  gaol  delivery,  when, 
if  the  offender  having  in  the  meantime  been  taken  be  in  goal 
the  justices  of  gaol  delivery  proceed  against  him,  but  if  he 


(A)  Lambe  v.  Wiseman,  Hobart,  70,  but  after  they  pronounce  the 
judgment,  they  may  stay  the  return,  I  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  417; 
2  Id.  85,  and  see  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  Book  2,  cap.  52, 
at  least  two  coroners  must  join  in  the  entry. 

(»')  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  204;  2  Rolle's  Abridgment,  802. 

(£)  King  v.  Yaudel,  4  Term  Reports,  542  (1792). 

(/)  Patrick's  Case,  Croke's  James,  528  (1620)  ;  King  v.  Yaudel,  4 
Term  Reports,  542  (1792). 

(m)   Bacon's  Abridgment  Title  Outlawry,  E.  4. 

(n)  Coke  upon  Littleton,  288;  Brooke's  Abridgment  Title  Ut- 
tlagarius,  31;  Puttenham's  Case,  Dyer,  3173  (1572),  City  of  London's 
Case,  8  Coke's  Reports,  i2ib,  126  (1610)  ;  2  Henry  VII,  33;  Jervis  on 
Coroners,  51. 

(0)  King  v.  Yaudel,  4  Term  Reports,  529-530  (1792)  ;  Jervis  on 
Coroners,  52. 

(p)  27  Assize,  47;  Brooke's  Abridgment  Title  Uttlagarius,  38; 
Jervis  on  Coroners,  52. 

(q)  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  199;  Jervis  on  Coroners,  52. 


THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  CORONERS  73 

be  not  in  custody  the  inquisition  is  certified  to  the  Court  of 
King'  Bench  from  whence  process  of  outlawry  is  awarded 
against  him  (r). 

If  the  coroner  refuses  to  pronounce  judgment  of  out- 
lawry upon  the  exigent  he  may  be  attached  (s),  or  may  be 
fined  or  imprisoned  unless  he  can  satisfactorily  account  for 
his  absence  if  his  non-appearance  be  returned  by  the  sheriff 

(0- 

It  has  been  said  that  much  credit  is  given  to  the  cor- 
oner's record  of  the  judgment  in  outlawry;  that  if  the  sher- 
iff return  a  qrtlntus  exactus  only  upon  the  exigent  and  the 
coroners  upon  a  certiorari  directed  to  them  certify  that  the 
defendant  has  been  outlawed,  the  return  of  the  sheriff  shall 
be  amended  by  the  certificate  upon  which  the  consequences 
of  outlawry  shall  attach  (M),  but  the  contrary  seems  to  have 
been  holden  by  one  authority  (v}  and  in  another  the  ex- 
tent of  this  proposition  is  made  the  subject  of  doubt  (w). 

Sect.  38.  The  coroner's  fourth  power  according  to 
Lord  Hale  (x}  is  to  take  the  confessions  of  a  felon  (y)  of 
a  felony  committed  in  a  foreign  country  (z)  and  take  his 
abjuration.  The  common  law  on  this  point  also  is  interest- 
ing. "It  is  to  be  observed  that  at  common  law  if  a  person 
accused  of  any  felony  (except  sacrilege)  whether  in  the 
same  or  any  other  county  for  which  he  was  liable  to  judg- 
ment of  death  and  not  charged  with  treason  had  fled  to  any 
churchyard  and  within  forty  days  confessed  himself  guilty 
before  the  coroner  and  declared  all  the  particular  circum- 
stances of  the  offence,  and  thereupon  taken  the  oath  in  that 
case  provided  (the  substance  whereof  was  that  he  abjured 

(r)  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  64 ;  Jervis  on  Coroners,  52. 

(j)  Anonymous,  Noy,  113  (1605). 

(0  Rastell's  Entries,  586. 

(M)  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  203;  Plume's  Case,  Latch,  210; 
8.  c.,  Palmer,  480  (1628) ;  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c.  48,  Sect. 
27;  Jervis  on  Coroners,  53. 

(v)   Proctor's  Case,  Dyer,  223  (1563)  ;  Jervis  on  Coroners,  53. 

(u>)  38  Edward  III,  14;  Jervis  on  Coroners,  53. 

(if)  2  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  68. 

(y)  Mirror,  c  I,  Sect.  13 ;  Britton,  c  I,  Sects.  5,  36. 

(*)  Hale  again  errs  on  the  side  of  caution,  the  coroner  can  take 
confessions  of  felonies  committed  not  only  in  England,  but  even  in  his 
own  county,  Britton,  c  I,  Sects.  5,  36;  (the  word  evidently  means 
county),  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c  52. 


74    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

the  realm  and  would  depart  as  soon  as  possible  at  the  port 
which  should  be  assigned  him  (a)  and  never  return  without 
leave  of  the  king,  etc.)  saved  his  life  if  he  observed  the 
terms  of  the  oath  by  going  with  all  convenient  speed  the 
nearest  way  to  the  port  assigned  etc.  (a),  but  he  was  at- 
tainted of  felony  by  such  abjuration  without  more  and  con- 
sequently forfeited  his  lands,  goods,  etc."  (&). 

We  learn  in  Britton  (c)  that  coroners  took  the  con- 
fession and  abjuration  in  the  presence  of  the  sheriff  (d)  and 
the  four  next  vills  before  whom  the  felon  should  publicly 
confess  and  abjure  the  realm  (<?)  but  if  the  felon  were  un- 
willing to  abjure  the  realm,  the  coroner  turned  him  over  to 
the  town  to  keep  at  their  peril  (/).  But  by  the  statute 
of  21  James  I,  chapter  25  "no  sanctuary  or  privilege  of 
sanctuary  shall  be  allowed  in  any  case"  (g). 

It  is  said  he  may  take  the  confession  of  him  that  breaks 
prison  and  on  his  record  the  party  shall  be  hanged  (&)• 
The  coroner's  record  of  an  abjuration  or  of  the  confession 
of  breaking  prison  or  of  felony  by  an  approver  estop  the 
party  not  only  from  traversing  the  confession,  but  also 
from  alleging  that  it  was  taken  from  his  by  duress,  etc.  So 
if  he  pjead  he  is  not  the  same  person  the  coroners  finding 
binds  him,  but  the  judge  may  inform  his  conscience  by  an 
inquiry  from  the  people  living  next  the  place  (t). 

(a)  Before  Edward  I's  time,  the  felon  might  elect  his  port,  after 
the  latter  part  of  that  reign  the  coroner  assigned  the  port,  12  Ed- 
ward I;  i  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  59,  and  see  Coroners  Rolls,  Selden 
Society,  p.  9,  where  the  felon  elected  in  1267  and  in  1276  it  was  as- 
signed to  him,  Ibid,  p.  37,  again  a  port  was  assigned  in  1278,  Ibid,  p.  38. 

(&)  2  Bacon's  Abridgment,  433;  see  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the 
Crown,  c  9,  Sect.  44. 

(c)  Chapter  i,  Sect.  36. 

(d)  "For  it  is  our  will  that  he  (the  coroner)  be  their  (the  sher- 
iffs) controller  in  every  branch  of  their  office." 

(e)  Chapter  i,  Sect.  37. 

(/)  No  one  but  the  coroner  could  grant  abjuration,  Umfreville's 
Lex  Coronatoris  LVII.  It  was  the  coroner  who  assigned  the  port 
though  some  say  it  was  the  sheriff.  By  the  Statute  of  22  Henry  VIII, 
c  7,  the  felon  was  permitted  to  abjure  only  the  liberties  of  the  realm 
that  is  he  was  to  remain  in  sanctuary  all  the  rest  of  of  his  life,  Ibid. 

(g)  4  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  1233  (1623),  Coke's  Pleas  of  the 
Crown,  Cap.  51. 

(h)  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  66;  8  Edward  II,  Coron.,  435, 
is  this  what  Comyns  refers  to  when  he  says  the  coroner  may  inquire  of 
prison  breach?  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c.  52,  citing  Shard,  J. 

(i)  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c  52,  and  2  Hawkins's  Pleas 
of  the  Crown,  c  9,  Sect.  53,  and  cases  there  cited. 


THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  CORONERS  75 

But  the  law  as  to  all  these  matters  of  abjuration  and 
confession  of  approvers  is  obsolete  (&)  and  has  long  been 
so. 

Sect.  39.  The  obligation  upon  the  coroner  to  act  was 
no  less  imperative  than  that  of  the  ville  to  notify  him  of  the 
occasion  thereto  (&&).  At  common  law  he  was  amerced  for 
neglect  (/).  By  the  statute  of  3  Henry  VII,  Chapter  I  (w) 
he  must  execute  his  office  upon  pain  of  £5  (w).  This  was 
reduced  to  40^.  by  the  statute  of  i  Henry  VIII,  c/  (0),  but 
again  changed  by  I  &  2  Phillip  and  Mary  C3,  so  as  to  be  at 
the  discretion  of  the  court  (/>).  In  Lord  Buchhurst's  case 
the  coroner  was  removed  and  fined  f  100  for  keeping  an  in- 
quisition in  his  pocket  "for  a  favor  to  a  felon"  (g).  If  he 
imposed  an  improper  (r)  inquisition  upon  the  jury  he  could 
be  committed  (s).  If  he  returned  the  wrong  presentment  an 
information  would  be  granted  against  him  (f).  So  too,  if 


(k)  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c  9,  Sect.  44. 

(kk)  If  one  be  killed  in  a  ville  and  the  coroner  makes  no  enquest 
(sic)  the  ville  must  be  amercied,  by  Twisden  for  probably  the  coroner 
had  no  notice  of  it.  Stiles,  238  pi.  546,  and  see  Staundeford's  Pleas  of 
the  Crown,  51. 

(/)  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  51,  by  3  Edward  I  "Cor- 
oners concealing  felonies  or  not  doing  their  duty  through  favor  to 
misdoers  shall  be  imprisoned  a  year  and  fined  at  the  pleasure  of  the 
King." 

(m)  2  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  511  (1487). 

(n)  Some  100  s,  it  is  all  the  same,  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the 
Crown,  51;  Queen  v.  Clerk,  I  Salkeld,  37?.  (1702)  ;  Rex  v.  Wakefield, 
i  Strange,  69;  Fitzherbert's  Abridgment  Title  Coroners,  292;  i  Hale's 
Pleas  of  the  Crown,  424;  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  58;  Hale's 
Summary,  170. 

(0)  3  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  4  (1509),  but  the  scope  of  the  enact- 
ment was  increased  to  include  the  taking  of  a  fee  for  an  inquest  upon 
the  body  of  a  person  dead  by  misadventure,  and  see  Staundeford's 
Pleas  of  the  Crown,  51 ;  Queen  v.  Clerk,  supra,  Hale's  Summary,  170. 

(p)  4  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  240  (1554),  by  25  George,  II,  he  is 
removed  from  office.  It  is  strange  also  to  notice  that  by  I  Henry 
VII,  c.  7,  the  fine  is  also  imposed  "if  he  do  not  endeavor." 

(9)  i  Keble,  280  (1662),  for  if  there  were  an  inquest  it  must  be 
returned  by  the  certiorari  per  curiam,  Stiles,  238  pi.  546. 

(r)  What  is  an  improper  inquest?  See  Post  discussion  of  the 
Lewis  murder  case,  Sect.  77. 

(j)  Rex  v.  Wakefield,  I  Strange,  69;  in  Rex  v.  Scorey,  i  Leach, 
43,  the  jury  were  instructed  to  find  murder  but  found  accidental 
death,  the  coroner  committed  the  man  for  murder  and  the  court  of 
King's  Bench  granted  a  rule  nisi  for  an  information  against  the  cor- 
oner. 

(0  Comerback,  386. 


76    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

he  failed  to  appear  when  called  upon  in  case  of  sudden  death 
and  the  grand  inquest  (w)  found  that  it  was  death  by  mis- 
adventure, but  the  coroner's  inquest  found  otherwise  (v). 
He  was  to  return  his  inquest  in  due  time  according  to  law, 
or  he  would  be  fined  for  neglect  (w). 

Of  all  these  neglects  the  justices  of  the  peace  or  of 
assize  inquired.  They  reported  the  defaults  and  extor- 
tions of  the  coroner  (#). 

But  even  these  penalties;  as  the  fact  that  there  are  de- 
cided cases  on  the  subject  proves,  were  not  sufficient  to  act 
as  deterrents.  What  then  could  be  done  in  the  case  of 
the  coroner's  neglect?  The  justices  of  Oyer  and  Terminer 
or  of  the  peace  or  a  justice  of  the  gaol  delivery  might  in- 
quire (;y).  But  their  presentment  was  traversable  (2).  So 
the  King's  Bench  might  itself  inquire  or  appoint  a  commis- 
sion to  inquire,  or  the  grand  jury  might  inquire,  but  these 
so-called  inquests  were  not  super  visum  corporis  and  could 
be  transversed  (^^). 

Fleta  gives  a  very  full  account  of  the  method  by  which 
the  king  investigated  the  doings  of  his  coroners.  Although 
the  method  here  set  out  long  since  became  obsolete  the  ac- 
count is  of  great  interest.  It  is  as  follows  (a)  : 

"Moreover  how  fraud  on  the  part  of  coroners  can  be 
overcome  is  shown  by  the  statute  of  Oxford  (aa)  which  is 
like  this.  It  is  provided  that  examiners  who  are  to  be 


(M)  Meaning  the  Grand  Jury. 

(v)  He  is  to  be  fined  and  imprisoned,  3  Edward  III,  Coron.,  292; 
2  Male's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  58. 

(w)  £5  by  3  Henry  VII,  cap.  i ;  2  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  511 ;  see 
2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  58;  but  see  King  v.  Lord  Buchhurst 
(supra). 

(*•)  By' i  Henry  VIII,  cap.  7;  3  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  4  (1509)  ; 
see  6  Viner's  Abridgment,  256. 

(y)  But  it  was  not  properly  speaking  an  inquisition,  and  they 
must  inquire  openly  if  they  inquire  secretly  their  inquest  shall  be 
quashed,  I  Burns'  Justices,  172;  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c.  9, 
Sect.  29. 

(2)  Coke's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  cap.  8,  p.  ssb;  I  Hale's  Pleas  of 
the  Crown,  cap.  37,  p.  414,  and  see  Langton  Case,  37  Eliz.  B.  R.,  Mss. 
mentioned  in  i  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  414,  and  Greeves  Case,  1656, 
Ibid,  and  see  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  59. 

(zz)  Stanlack's  Case,  i  Ventris,  182  s.  c. ;  i  Modern,  82  (1671). 

(a)  Book  i,  Chapter  18. 

(ao)  Whether  there  was  such  a  statute  is  a  question. 


THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  CORONERS  77 

appointed  to  make  written  records  at  their  own  warrants 
shall  give  notice  to  the  sheriff  of  the  place  whither  they 
shall  have  been  summoned;  (2)  that  they  shall  cause  to 
come  into  their  presence,  at  a  certain  day  and  place  ex- 
pressed in  their  mandate,  A  coroner  of  B,  the  men  and  those 
of  the  hundreds,  the  servants  and  beadles  who  are  now 
residing  in  the  bailiwick  of  the  coroner  himself  or  shall  have 
been  at  the  time  when  the  said  A  was  first  made  coroner 
of  the  king,  whether  within  the  liberty  or  beyond  it  (sive 
infra  libertatem  vel  extra),  and  all  the  clerks  with  all  their 
rolls  and  records  for  the  whole  time  for  which  A  shall 
have  been  coroner  of  the  king. 

Furthermore,  when  the  examiners  themselves  shall 
shall  have  come  they  shall  both  cause  the  aforesaid  rolls 
to  be  sealed,  and  shall  return  them,  the  coroner  having  ac- 
knowledged these  said  seals,  unbroken  (to)  until  the  ar- 
rival of  the  itinerant  justice  to  be  preserved  in  safety 
unless  it  shall  have  been  otherwise  ordered  by  a  warrant 
"Regii  mandati"  in  the  meantime;  and  what  is  said  con- 
cerning the  coroner  shall  be  known  by  his  successor  that 
same  who  shall  be  charged  from  the  time  of  his  predecessor 
the  coroner.  And  this  shall  be  done  that  the  same  coroner 
or  his  successors  or  the  clerk  may  not  be  able  to  manufac- 
ture anything  in  the  court  of  the  aforesaid  circuit  in  the 
case  of  these  rolls. 

And  afterwards  the  officers,  servants  of  the  bailiwick 
and  the  beadles  aforesaid  shall  swear  that  they  will  perform 
well  and  faithfully  those  things  which  the  aforesaid  ex- 
aminers shall  enjoin  upon  them  on  the  part  of  the  king 
and  that  they  will  keep  secrecy.  And  when  these  officers, 
etc.,  have  sworn  each  bailiff  of  a  hundred  and  of  a  liberty 
shall  be  charged  separately,  (per  se),  upon  whom  is  shall 
be  enjoined  (i)  to  have  in  the  presence  of  the  examiners 
at  a  certain  day  and  place  all  names  of  the  towns  and  ham- 
lets existing  in  their  bailiwick,  the  aforesaid  examiners 
being  made  known  and  the  information  furnished  being  dis- 
tinctly rendered  (liberatura)  ;  (2)  and  to  cause  to  come 
into  the  examiner's  presence  at  that  time  from  each  (any) 
town  eight  men,  from  a  lesser  town  six  men  and  from  any 


78    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

hamlet,  four  of  the  better  sort  and  more  acquainted  with 
the  law,  excepting  the  lords  of  such  towns  and  hamlets, 
through  whom  the  examiners  themselves  shall  receive  and 
take  the  principal  inquiry  from  twelve  prime  jurors   (6) 
from  any  hundred,  liberty  and     town     replying     through 
twelve,  who  live  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  aforesaid 
coroner,  and  (3)  (to  see)  that  each  of  the  aforesaid  eight, 
six  and  four  have  his  own  proper  seal  and  if  a  lack  be  found 
in  the  aforesaid  towns,  lesser  towns  and  hamlets,  preventing 
the  possibility  of  making  the  inquiry  from  free  men  as  sat- 
isfactory, then  (4)  to  add  to  the  same  from  the  more  dis- 
creet and  law-experienced  villeins  having  seals.     Further- 
more, when  the  examiners  shall  have  come  at  the  said  day 
and  place  and  the  foregoing  has  been  done,  then  they  shall 
themselves   chose   an  examiner  assigning   "per  Dominum 
Regeni"  from  the  aforesaid  eight,  six  and  four  men,  two 
of  the  better  sort  and  more  trained  in  the  law,  at  their 
discretion ;  who  shall  thus  take  oath,  viz. :  "You  hear"(C  and 
D,  examiners  assigned  "per  Dominum  Regeni"}    "that  I 
shall  speak  the  truth  and  that  I  shall  conceal  no  truth  nor 
so  far  as  in  me  lies  shall  I  permit  it  to  be  concealed  or 
suppressed  in  your  presence  on  occasion  of  any  promise, 
gift,    favor,   hate,   love  or  affinity  nor  through   any  one's 
abettance  or  procuring  or  in  any  way  shall  I  omit  to  speak 
truth   or   make   presentation  to  you  upon   those   matters 
which  you  will  enjoin  or  charge  upon  me,  so  help  me  God, 
and  these  relics,  etc.,  especially  upon  those  matters  which  I 
know  or  shall  have  been  able  to  inquire."   This  same  oath 
the  townsmen  and  those  of  the  hamlets  shall  then  take  indi- 
vidually, and  by  the  same  oath  the  twelve  shall  be  charged 
afterwards,  but  the  inquisitors  themselves  hand  it  over; 
and  they  will  deliberate  after  the  swearing  in  of  each  man 
of  the  towns  (c),  lesser  towns  and  hamlets  of  the  hundreds 
wapentakes  and  liberties  in  the  jurisdiction  aforesaid  existing 
and  likewise  without,  but  it  may  be  necessary  that  a  capitu- 
lary be  taken  so  that  thereby  they  may  render  themselves 


(&)   Prime  jurors  seems  to  refer  to  the  first  men  sworn, 
(c)  It  appears   from  the  text  that  the   eight,   six   and   four  men 
form  a  sort  of  assistant  examining  board  to  the  twelve,  a  local  jury. 


THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  CORONERS  79 

more  certain  on  the  part  of  the  king  by  firmly  enjoining  upon 
freeman  under  penalty  of  exhaeredatio  and  on  villeins  un- 
der penalty  of  life  imprisonment  that  they  shall  not  conceal 
any  part  of  the  truth  but  fully  just  as  herein  it  shall  have  been 
found  they  shall  make  presentation,  which  presentation 
shall  be  duplicated  in  handwriting  which  duplicates  with 
their  seals  appended  shall  be  delivered  to  the  said  examiners 
and  of  these  duplicates  one  shall  remain  within  the  keeping 
of  these  examiners  and  the  other  be  delivered  to  the  twelve 
jurors  so  that  concerning  the  articles  contained  in  the  same 
they  may  be  more  fully  informed  when  they  shall  have  been 
convened  for  this  purpose. 

In  the  first  place  they  shall  make  faithful  presentation 
(i)  of  all  murders,  homicides  and  felonies,  by  whom,  when, 
and  where  on  earth,  that  is,  whether  on  water,  in  wood,  or 
plain,  in  marsh,  whether  in  the  town  or  out,  or  wheresoever 
and  howsoever  perpetrated  during  the  whole  time  for  which 
such  A  was  coroner  of  the  king  in  those  regions;  (2), 
whether  the  coroner  himself  in  person  shall  have  gone  to 
the  same  in  performing  his  office,  or,  if  by  chance  he  shall 
have  substituted  another  in  his  place,  (3)  how  often,  and 
who  the  substitute  was. 

Likewise  (4)  if  the  coroner  himself,  gratis  and  with- 
out delay,  shall  have  gone  to  recover  treasure,  how  often 
he  may  have  been  required  for  this  purpose,  or,  if  he  sought 
anything  or  his  clerk  received  anything  to  do  quickly  that 
office  of  his  which  he  was  bound  to  do  without  compensa- 
tion, or  if  he  sought  delay  so  that  by  such  means  he  might 
extort  money,  in  that  case  how  often  and  how  much,  and 
at  whose  hands  he  may  have  received  such  money. 

Likewise  (5)  if  the  chattels  of  felons  shall  have  been 
legally  appraised  as  well  by  his  own  friends  as  others  and 
delivered  to  a  townsman  to  be  guarded  or  shall  have  been 
indicted  in  the  coroner's  roll  without  regard. 

Likewise  (6)  concerning  any  gifts  given  to  the  cor- 
oner for  this,  viz. :  because  he  took  false  and  hired  (inquest) 
testimony,  for  suppressing  the  trial  of  any  one,  appraising 
the  chattels  of  any  one  at  less  than  the  true  value,  or  if, 
making  an  inquest  in  his  court  concerning  property  and 


80    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

enrollments  he  shall  have  caused  enrollments  to  be  made 
otherwise  than  in  the  prescribed  form,  or  if  he  falsify  his 
rolls,  then  in  what  case  and  in  whose  behalf  it  was  attribut- 
able to  him  and  to  his  clerk  therefor. 

Likewise  if  he  shall  have  caused  any  appeals  to  be  en- 
rolled falsely  or  suffered  them  to  be  suppressed  (murdriri) 
or  stricken  from  his  rolls  or  (supersident}  omitted  or  re- 
fused to  admit  or  enroll  them  etc.,  by  force  of  poverty  or 
ill  will  for  the  plaintiff  or  by  favor  on  occasion  of  a  gift 
or  a  promise  or  on  account  of  fear  or  affinity  for  any  de- 
fendant, and  (in  case  such  were  done)  at  whose  hands. 

Likewise  if  he  shall  have  received  anything  from  the 
townsmen  among  whom  he  caused  to  be  made  his  oaths, 
appearance  and  inquests;  in  that  case  how  often  and  how 
much  and  at  whose  hands. 

Likewise  if  any  of  his  men  at  his  appearances  and  in- 
quests shall  have  taken  anything  from  the  bodies  of  the 
dead  persons  and  carried  it  off,  in  that  case  how  much  and 
how  often  and  who  did  this.  Likewise  if  he  caused  all 
attachments  to  be  made  in  the  accredited  manner  or  not. 

Likewise  if  he  caused  any  one  to  be  attached  unjustly 
so  that  he  injured  him  and  thus  extorted  from  him  in 
place  of  the  (guilty)  or  chargeable  party  who  may  have  had 
the  same  name,  in  that  case  at  whose  instigation  and  abett- 
ment  and  how  much  he  received  from  such  injured  party 
or  the  manifest  procurer  of  it. 

Likewise  if  he  did  his  office  in  all  cases  without  delay 
and  willingly  taking  nothing  from  any  one,  according  to 
the  tenor  of  the  statute. 

Likewise,  if  in  any  case  he  shall  have  made  any  con- 
cealment concerning  articles  of  appeal  or  caused  or  procured 
their  concealment  to  the  detriment  of  the  appellant,  the  de- 
fendant or  another  on  the  occasion  of  gift,  fear,  affinity, 
promise,  love  or  any  one's  procuring  in  that  case  how  and  by 
whom,  for  what  return,  on  what  occasion,  how  often  and 
in  what  cases. 

Likewise  whether  or  not  (necne)  he  shall  have  faith- 
fully caused  the  arrest  of  bondsmen,  runaway  from  the 
people  among  whom  they  were  sojourning  and  withdrawn 


THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  CORONERS  81 

for  suspicion  of  wrong  held  concerning  them,  and  shall 
have  caused  the  same  to  be  enrolled  afresh  after  a  thorough 
investigation  and  delivered  to  the  townsmen  in  whose  keep- 
ing they  have  been  placed  (found)  to  be  kept  safely  until 
the  arrival  of  the  circuit  (itinerant)  justice;  and  if  he  shall 
not  have  done  this  in  whole  or  in  part,  in  that  case  who  de- 
livered these  things  (made  free  of  them}  and  to  what  ex- 
tent. 

Likewise,  if  he  shall  not  have  subtracted  any  appeal 
or  complaint,  or  caused  it  to  be  subtracted  and  made  naught 
in  that  case  by  whose  procuring  and  for  how  much  he 
shall  have  done  this  and  how  often. 

Likewise,  concerning  treasure  found  at  any  time  in 
his  bailiwick,  who  found  it  and  how  much  and  to  whose 
hands  it  came  eventually. 

The  examiners  are  required  to  go  to  make  clearly  the 
aforesaid  investigation  from  wapentake  to  wapentake,  and 
from  hundred  to  hundred  as  well  under  the  liberty  as  be- 
yond, and  from  town  to  town,  replying  (which  town  re- 
plies) through  twelve  men.  And  the  presentations  of  the 
jurors  being  thus  taken,  with  all  their  seals,  (the  exam- 
iners) shall  cause  to  come  into  their  presence,  at  once, 
twelve  men  of  the  better,  richer  and  more  discreet  sort  and 
shall  charge  them  with  hands  upon  the  Bible  (tactis  sacrar 
sanctis)  faithfully  to  present  the  truth  concerning  the 
aforesaid  capitaries. 

And  if  the  examiners  shall  have  suspected  any  conceal- 
ment, it  shall  be  permitted  then  through  twenty-four  jurors 
chosen  from  the  whole  body  of  the  county  and  charged  ac- 
cording to  the  aforesaid  capitularies,  to  commit  all  or  any 
concealing  the  truth  in  the  forgoing  matters. 

Furthermore,  if  any  coroner,  clerk,  juror  or  bailiff  shall 
happen  to  be  convicted  in  their  court  in  the  aforesaid  cases, 
such  shall  be  delivered  to  the  sheriff  who  shall  guard  them 
until  they  shall  have  been  formally  delivered  through  suf- 
ficient mancipators,  after  satisfaction  made  to  the  king,  of 
fraud,  perjury  and  falsifying  when  the  king  may  be  willing 
to  pronounce  thereupon,  and  upon  such  the  king  shall  be  per- 
mitted at  will  to  affix  a  heavy  penalty  not  expressed.  Given 
at  Oxford,  etc. 


Sect.  40.  The  office  of  coroner  seems  in  ancient  times 
to  have  been  more  elevated  than  today.  They  acted  with 
the  sheriff  in  the  county  court,  holding  a  counter  roll  (c) 
and  so  acting  as  a  check  on  the  sheriff  (d),  for  the  coroner's 
roll  was  of  more  authority  than  his.  They  kept  a  record 
of  all  fines  and  amercements  in  the  sheriff's  court 
(e).  Fleta  even  goes  so  far  as  to  call  the  county  court, 
the  court  of  the  sheriff  and  the  coroner  (/)  while  Brit- 
ton  says  (#)  that  in  counties  there  is  a  twofold  court, 
one  of  the  pleas  of  the  king's  peace  which  is  held  by  the  cor- 
oners and  suitors  and  of  which  the  coroners  only  have 
record,  the  other  (for  civil  actions)  in  which  the  suitors 
are  judges  and  have  no  record  out  of  their  court  except 
by  consent  of  the  parties.  The  rolls  exhibited  by  the  Sel- 
den  Society  use  the  words  Crown  Pleas  and  Pleas  of  the 
Coroner  interchangeably  (i). 

On  the  criminal  side  of  this  court  the  sheriff  held 
a  counter  roll  (fc)  though  he  did  not  act  judicially  and  an 
appeal  commenced  before  the  coroner  alone  was  deemed 
sufficient  (/),  for  the  coroner  could  receive  an  appeal  with- 
out the  concurrence  of  any  other  officer  (m).  A  certiorari 
to  the  coroner  alone  was  sufficient  (n)  for  the  coroner  was 
the  judge,  but  the  certiorari  was  more  usually  to  the  coroner 
and  the  sheriff  by  the  statute  of  Westminster  I,  chapter  10. 
But  never  to  the  sheriff  alone,  neither  for  appeals  nor  for 
outlawries,  unless  in  London  (0).  Some  say  that  the 


(c)  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  Book  2,  cap.  51. 

(d)  Gilbert's  Historical  View  of  the  Exchequer,  80;  see  Article 
by  Charles  Gross,  7  Political  Science  Quarterly,  656. 

(e)  Gilbert's  Historical  View  of  the  Exchequer,  80. 
(/)  fol.  40. 

(g)  Book  i,  Sect.  135. 

(t)  And  see  Select  Coroners  Rolls,  pp.  34-36,  and  Gross's  Intro- 
duction, p  XXV. 

(*)  34  Edward  III,  146;  Register,  2843;  Fleta,  Book  i,  cap.  18, 
Sect,  i;  Proctor's  Case,  Dyer,  223b  (1563),  by  3  Henry  VII. 

(/)  4  Henry  VI,  16;  contra,  Brooke's  Abridgment  Title  Appeals 
44,  and  see  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c.  9,  Sect.  39. 

(m)  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  67;  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the 
Crown,  c  9,  Sect.  39;  Hale's  Summary,  172. 

(n)  4  Henry  VI,  i6a,  Proctor's  Case,  Dyer,  222b  (1563). 

(0)  Puttenham's  Case,  Dyer,  3i7a;  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown, 
67. 


THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  CORONERS  S3 

certiorari  must  be  directed  to  both  the  sheriff  and  the 
coroner  (/>),  but  others  say  the  coroner  is  sole  judge  of  the 
court  (#).  Remnants  of  these  earlier  powers  of  the 
coroner  lingered  many  centuries.  He  could  administer 
oaths  (&),  which  he  commonly  did  to  the  jury  and  to 
witnesses.  He  had  the  power  to  commit  (/).  Indeed  he 
might  be  said  to  have  been  a  committing  magistrate  (w). 
He  probably  had  power  to  exclude  from  his  presence  those 
whom  he  deemed  it  proper  (n)  to  exclude,  without  doubt 
might  bind  any  person  to  the  peace  who  made  an  affray  in 
his  presence  (0)  and  was  vested  with  power  to  forcibly 
remove  those  who  obstructed  him  in  the  performance  of 
his  duties  (/>).  It  was  said  to  be  a  misdemeanor  to  ob- 
struct the  coroner  or  his  jury  in  the  view  or  inquiry  (q). 
His  proceedings  were  considered  judicial  in  their  nature 
(r)  and  could  not  be  performed  by  deputy  (5),  even  cor- 
oners virtute  cartae  sive  commissionis  could  not  delegate 
their  authority  (f),  except  the  coroner  of  the  admiralty 
(«).  They  must  even  style  themselves  "coroner"  in  their 
return  or  their  inquisitions  were  void  (v).  So  where  one 


(/>)  14  Henry  IV,  isb,  16;  Brooke's  Abridgment  Title  Appeals,  44; 
2  Coke's  Institutes,  176;  Staunde ford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  64;  2  Hale's 
Pleas  of  the  Crown,  67-70;  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c  9,  Sect. 
42. 

(q)  2  Coke's  Institutes,  176;  4  Henry  VI,  16;  Brooke's  Abridg- 
ment Title  Appeals,  44;  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c  9,  Sect.  39, 
but  see  contra,  17  Assize,  5;  Brooke's  Abridgment  Title  Appeals,  56; 
Hale's  Summary,  172;  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  52-64. 

(£)  Mirror,  c  i,  Sect.  13. 

(/)  See  Post,  Sect.  42  for  a  fuller  discussion  of  this  topic. 

(m)  Jervis  on  Coroners,  31;  Mirror,  c  i,  Sect.  13;  Britton,  f  8; 
Lamb  Eiren,  378. 

(n)  See  Post,  Sect.  54  for  a  fuller  discussion  of  this  subject. 

(0)  2  Bacon's  Abridgment,  424,  note  c. 

(p)  Jervis  on  Coroners,  271. 

(g)  Umfreville  citing  Calth.  M.  S.,  and  see  Jervis  on  Coroners, 
270;  an  injunction  was  secured  from  the  privy  council  commanding 
the  coroner  not  to  take  his  inquiry  without  the  assistance  of  a 
justice  of  the  peace  whereupon  the  coroner  ended  his  inquiry  and  upon 
a  motion  for  prohibition  it  was  held  the  injunction  was  against  the  law. 

(r)  See  Post,  Sect.  54. 

(j)  See  Post,  Sect  41. 

(0  See  ante,  Sect.  20. 

(«)  Ante,  Sect.  19. 

(v)  Ante,  Sect.  23. 


84    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

who  sat  was  not  a  coroner,  the  whole  proceeding  was 
quashed  upon  a  writ  of  error  («;).  The  sheriff  and 
bailiffs  must  attend  him  if  he  so  demanded  (#).  In  other 
words  the  court  of  the  coroner  was  still  a  court  of  record 

(y). 

Sect.  41.  The  coroner's  office  being  a  judicial  one,  it 
follows  as  a  matter  of  course  that  such  duties  as  are  in  their 
nature  judicial  must  be  exercised  by  the  coroner  and  not 
by  another  (2)  as  Britton  says  (a),  coroners  are  prohibited 
from  making  substitutes  (&),  and  if  anything  be  done  by 
such  a  substitute,  it  is  void  (bb).  But  the  coroner  of  the 
admiralty  forms  an  exception  to  this  otherwise  general 
rule  (c). 

In  Dearing's  case  (d)  Lord  Berkley's  coroner  failed 
to  state  in  his  return  how  Lord  Berkley  came  to  make  him 
coroner,  and  therefore  the  return  was  quashed.  This  is 
an  additional  reason  why  none  but  the  coroner  can  hold  the 
inquest  or  even  view  the  body  (?),  Jervis  puts  the  reason 
for  the  rule  very  clearly,  saying  (/)  :  "But  without  ref- 
erence to  authority  it  is  clear  from  principle  that  the 
power  of  the  coroner  could  not  at  common  law  be  deputed, 
being  an  office  of  trust,  one  which  concerns  the  public 
administration  of  justice  and  the  revenue  of  the  crown, 
into  which  the  coroner  is  elected  from  his  presumed  quali- 


(w)  The  Coroners  Case,  Jenkins,  90  pi.,  74. 

(x)  Britton,  c  i,  Sect.  43. 

(y)  4  Coke's  Institutes,  271 ;  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  53 ;  4 
Blackstone's  Commentaries,  274;  Comyns  Digest  Title  Officer,  G.  5. 

(*)  A  coroner  may  appoint  a  deputy  without  deed,  Clecott  v. 
Dennys,  Croke's  Elizabeth,  67  (1588),  but  the  deputy  may  not  hold 
inquests.  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  51. 

(o)  C  i,  Sect.  3. 

(&)  Except  the  Lord  Steward  and  Justices  of  Ireland  and  Chester. 

(b&)  "Be  it  even  an  abjuration  or  of  outlawry." 

(c)  2  Burn's  Justices,  29  (Edition  of  1845). 

(rf)  Croke's  Elizabeth,  193,  pi.,  7,  and  see  Penners  Case,  Ibid,  31, 
pi.,  4. 

(*)By  the  Statute  of  Exeter  (14  Edward  I)  see  Fitzherbert's 
Abridgment  Title  Justices,  166;  Jervis  on  Coroners,  5-6  and  71; 
Crompton's  Justices,  f  2273,  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  58.  But 
note  also  that  Professor  Gross  says  the  Statute  of  Exeter  is  without 
date  (Introduction  to  Select  Coroners  Rolls,  XXV,  it  would  seem  it 
is  in  force  in  Pennsylvania,  therefore),  and  is  of  doubtful  authority. 

(/)  Coroners,  72. 


THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  CORONERS  85 

fications  to  discharge  the  important  duties  belonging  to  it. 
These  qualifications  are  personal  and  could  not  be  dele- 
gated." 

Sect.  42.  Another  power  of  the  coroner  which  is  inci- 
dent to  his  authority  as  a  court  of  record,  was  the  power  to 
commit.  While  this  was  undoubtedly  within  the  power 
of  the  coroner,  the  extent  of  this  authority  was  very  ill 
defined  and  uncertain.  He  undoubtedly  had  the  power  to 
commit  those  who  made  an  affray  in  his  presence  (g). 
He  probably  also  might  commit  any  person  who  offered 
obstruction  to  the  due  administration  of  justice  (h).  But 
his  powers  beyond  these  were  very  doubtful.  Jervis  says 
(hh),  he  "may  cause  felons  to  be  apprehended,  also  bur- 
glars and  robbers  as  to  whom  no  inquisition  can  be  taken 
Some  authorities  say  he  had  the  power  to  commit  those 
found  guilty  (i),  while  others  seem  to  be  of  opinion  that 
he  only  had  authority  to  record  in  order  that  others  might 
punish  (fc).  Undoubtedly  he  could  compel  the  first  finders 
of  a  dead  body  to  produce  pledges  (/),  unless  the  deceased 
had  had  the  rites  of  the  church  (w).  Where  deliberate 
murder  was  committed,  the  neighbors  were  required  to 
find  pledges  (w).  In  Henry  IPs  time  the  coroner  could 
not  allow  a  person  accused,  either  as  principal  or  accessory, 
to  remain  out  of  jail  (0).  In  Granville's  time,  there  was  a 
special  writ  obtainable  as  a  matter  of  royal  favor  to  in- 
quire whether  the  party  was  justly  accused.  It  was  known 
as  the  writ  de  odio  et  atya  and  directed  the  coroner  to 


(g)  Crom.  6,  Lamb  b.  I,  c.  3;  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c.  8, 
Sect.  5 ;  2  Bacon's  Abridgment,  424,  note  c. 

(/»)  Jervis  on  Coroners,  271. 

(A/t)  Coroners,  p.  31;  see  Mirror,  c  i,  Sect.  13;  Britton,  f  8;  Lamb 
Eiren,  378. 

(i)  i  Blackstone's  Commentaries,  348;  see  4  Edward  I,  Sect,  i; 
Britton.  c  i.  Sect.  43. 

(k)  Mirror,  c  i,  Sect.  13;  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  64. 

(/)  Coroners  Rolls,  Selden  Society,  pp.  1-2-3-4-5,  etc.,  Bracton, 
f.  I2ib;  i  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  40;  Britton,  c.  i  Sect.  24;  4  Edward 
I,  Sect.  I. 

m)  30  and  31  Edward  I,  522;  Bracton,  fol.  135. 

(n)  Coroners  Rolls,  Selden  Society,  14-15-24,  etc. 

(0)  Sir  Travis  Twiss's  Introduction  to  Bracton. 


86    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

inquire  if  the  inquest  had  not  so  found  from  spite  or 
hatred  (/>). 

If  any  were  present  at  the  death  and  not  guilty,  they 
were  to  be  bound  over  to  the  next  gaol  delivery  and  their 
names  recorded  on  the  roll,  the  idea  being  that  if  evi- 
dence were  found  against  them  they  might  be  proceeded 
against  and  if  not  they  might  be  used  as  witnesses  (g). 
The  coroner  had  power  to  take  a  manslayer  before  he  took 
the  inquest,  for  the  inquest  sometimes  was  long  and  the 
guilty  might  escape  (r).  In  ancient  times,  if  the  parties 
found  guilty  by  the  inquest  were  not  found  they  were  to 
be  proceeded  against  to  outlawry  (.?).  But  Hale  says 
"but  now  it  is  different,  the  coroner  doth  not  proceed  to  out- 
seems  clear  that  the  security  taken  by  him  for  keeping  the 
lawry,  but  certifies  it  to  the  next  gaol  delivery  who  are 
to  proceed  against  the  offenders  if  they  are  in  gaol,  if  not 
to  certify  it  to  the  B.  R.  who  proceed  to  outlawry  "  (f). 
Hawkins  takes  a  very  narrow  view  of  the  power  of  the 
coroner  in  this  direction.  He  says,  "but  it  seems  the  better 
opinion  that  he  hath  no  authority  to  grant  process  and  it 
seems  clear  that  the  security  taken  by  him  for  keeping  the 
peace  (except  only  when  it  is  taken  by  him  as  a  judge  of 
his  own  court  for  an  affray  done  in  such  court)  is  not  to 
be  looked  upon  as  a  recognizance,  but  as  an  obligation, 
because  it  is  not  taken  by  one  who  acts  as  a  judge  of  rec- 
ord or  by  the  king's  commission  as  all  recognizances  ought 
to  be"  O). 

Sect.  43.  We  have  already  seen  (z/)  that  the  office  of 
coroner  was  a  highly  honorable  one.  It  was  an  office  where 
the  duties  were  paid  for  only  by  the  glory  (w).  The  stat- 
ute of  fourth  Edward  I  provides  "that  no  coroner  demand 
or  take  anything  to  do  his  office  upon  pain  of  great  for- 


(/>)  Chapter  36,  of  the  Charter  of  Liberties  of  Henry  III,  makes 
this  writ  gratuitous,  Fleta  goes  to  considerable  length  about  this  writ, 
see  Appendix. 

(</)  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  64. 

(r)  Umfreyille  Lex  Conoratoris,  XXIX. 

(s)  27  Assize,  47,  and  see  Crompton  Justices,  p.  226b. 

(0  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  64. 

(«)  2  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  Chapt.  8,  Sect.  5. 

(v)  See  ante,  Sect. 

(«;)  Mirror,  c.  i,  Sect.  13,  Bracton  Lib.  3,  fol.  121,  122,  123;  Brit- 
ton,  c  i,  Fleta,  Book  I,  c  18,  Sect.  I ;  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown, 
48-49-50;  see  4  Edward  I.  For  if  he  takes  no  fee  he  will  do  justice, 
Staundeford,  supra,  what  a  comment  on  our  present  system. 


THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  CORONERS  87 

feiture  to  the  king"  (x}.  The  statute  herein  affirms  the 
common  law  (y).  Some  authors  are  of  opinion  that  the 
statute  says  he  must  pay  the  king  double  every  fee  he  takes. 
Coke  records  an  instance  (2}  where  a  coroner  was  fined 
4os.  because  he  would  not  take  an  inquest  until  he  was  paid 
6s.  8d.  for  himself,  and  2s.  for  his  clerk. 

In  ancient  times  the  coroner  was  entitled  to  one 
penny  for  every  visne  (a)  when  they  came  before  the  jus- 
tices in  Eyre  as  pertaining  to  their  office  and  towards 
their  travail,  attendance  and  charges.  "This  contribution," 
observes  Sir  Edward  Coke,  "was  neither  against  the  common 
law  nor  the  statute  of  West,  i  c.  10  (6),  for  they  took  it 
not  for  doing  their  office,  but  as  a  right  due  to  their  office 
which  might  have  a  reasonable  beginning"  (c),  all  of  which 
may  be  true,  but  it  is  very  difficult  of  comprehension  to 
the  modern  mind;  appearing  to  be  a  distinction  without  a 
difference. 

By  the  statute  of  third  Henry  VII,  chapter  I  (rf),  the 
coroner  was  to  receive  135.  4d.  out  of  the  goods  of  the 
murderer  if  he  have  any,  if  not,  then  out  of  the  township 
(e).  This  statute  recites  that  it  is  passed  because  coroners 
are  lax  in  the  performance  of  their  duties  and  provides 
for  an  amercement  of  100  shillings  for  every  default.  By 
the  statute  of  first  Henry  VIII,  chapter  7  (/),  the  coroner 
shall  take  no  fee  when  the  person  slain  met  death  by  misad- 
venture (g). 

(x)  i  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  40;  2  Coke's  Institutes,  176;  see  also 
3  Henry  VII,  c  i ;  2  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  511 ;  Britton,  c  i,  Sect.  25. 

(y)  2  Coke's  Institutes,  176,  and  see  Fleta  Lib.  i,  c  8,  Sect.  I. 

(ar)  3  Coke's  Institutes,  149,  and  see  Umfreville's  Lex  Coronatoris, 
265. 

(a)  Rotuli  Parliament,  Vol.  I,  p.  205 ;  Fitzherbert's  Abridgment 
Title  Coroners,  372,  and  see  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown, 
48-49-50. 

(&)  Evidently  intending  4  Edward  I.  It  was  long  classified  as 
above. 

(f)  2    Coke's    Institutes,    176;    see   Jervis    on    Coroners,    75,    and 
Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  49. 

(d)  2  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  511. 

(e)  Out  of  the  amercements  of  the  township  if  he  escape,  2  Coke's 
Institutes,  210;  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  Chap.  9,  Sects.  46-47. 

(/)  3  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  4. 

(g)  Under  pain  of  403  and  note  that  in  Rex  v.  The  Justices  of 
Kent,  2,  East,  229   (1809),  fees  were  first  refused  a  coroner  on  the 
ground  that  there  was  no  reason  for  the  inquisition. 


88    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

Sect.  44.  Coroners  are  exempt  from  serving  on  juries 
(/»)  or  in  other  offices  which  are  inconsistent  with  their 
duties  as  coroner  (i).  They  are  exempt  from  arrest  eundo 
morando  vel  redundo  for  the  purpose  of  the  inquest 


(h)  Comyns  Digest  Title  Officer,  G.  14;  2  Rolle's  Abridgment 
632;  Fitzherbert's  Natura  Brevium,  167;  Umfreville's  Lex  Coronatoris, 
154- 

(/)  2  Rolle's  Abridgment,  632;  Fitzherbert's  Natura  Brevium,  167. 

(&)  There  is  no  authority  for  this,  but  it  is  none  the  less  true. 


CHAPTER  VI. 
CORONER'S  INQUESTS  IN  ENGLAND. 

Sect.  45.  We  now  come  to  the  consideration  of  the 
inquest  to  hold  which  was  the  principal  duty  of  the  coroner. 
Although  the  statute  (a)  is  silent  upon  the  subject  (6)  it 
is  clearly  agreed  that  the  inquest  shall  be  taken  upon  the 
view  of  the  body  (c)  ;  and  that  the  coroner  could  not  sit 
if  the  body  were  not  found  (d).  So  where  the  body  could 
not  be  produced  (e),  as  where  a  man  threw  himself  into 
a  river  and  was  drowned  (/)  there  could  be  no  inquest. 
A  large  part  of  the  evidence  before  the  jury  was  the  body 
itself  and  as  we  shall  see  the  jury  had  to  be  sworn  super 
visium  corporis  (#).  For  this  reason  the  inquest  had  to 


(a)  4  Edward  I,  I  Statutes  of  the  Realm  40.  But  note  that  3 
Henry  VII,  c  I,  Sect.  2  says  "every  coroner  upon  view  of  the  dead 
body  shall  inquire." 

(fe)  2  Bacon's  Abridgment,  429. 

(c)  27  Assize,  55;  Britton,  c  I,  Sect.  7;  Staundeford's  Pleas  of 
the  Crown,  51;  Hale's  Summary,   170;  4  Blackstone's  Commentaries, 
274;  citing  "4  Inst.  271;  2  Hale's  P.  C.,  53;  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the 
Crown,  42."     Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  Book  II,  Chapter  52. 
(Fleta  tells  us  the  body  must  be  naked  at  the  time  of  the  view  Lib. 
I,  cap.  25,   Sect.   9.)     Unless  he   had  a   special  commission,  but   the 
justices  of  the  peace,  etc.,  might,  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c  9, 
Sect.  25. 

(d)  i  Blackstone's  Commentaries,  348,  citing  "4  Inst.  271."  There 
must  be  a  person  dead,  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  Book  2, 
cap.  52,  the  coroner  is  under  no  duty  to  take  an  inquest  upon  the 
body  of  a  monster  or  unborn  child. 

(e)  The  Welchman's  Case,  Latch,  166  (1662)  s.  c. ;  Popham,  209 
(1656)  ;  King  v.  Parker,  2  Levinz,  141  (1675)  ;  Anonymous,  i  Ventris, 

352  (1680)  ;  King  v.  Bunney,  I  Salkeld,  190.  The  Coroner  of  Montgom- 
ery's Case,  Noy  87  (1625),  but  the  Justices  of  Oyer  &  Terminer  may. 
Foxley's  case,  5  Coke's  Reports,  nob;  i  Rolle's  Reports,  217;  Staunde- 
ford's Pleas  of  the  Crown,  51 ;  2  Rolle's  Abridgment,  96 ;  Hale's  Sum- 
mary, 170;  i  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c  27;  Sects.  12  and  13;  2 
Ibid,  c  9,  Sect.  23 ;  I  East's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  379. 

(/)  The  Welchman's  Case,  Latch.  166  (1662)  s.  c. ;  Popham,  209 
(1656).  In  such  case  the  justices  of  the  peace  should  inquire,  see  21 
Edward  IV,  70;  2  Richard  III,  2;  6  Richard  II,  Coron.,  107,  and  Fox- 
ley's  Case,  5  Coke's  Reports,  no  (1601)  ;  2  Rolle's  Abridgment,  96. 

(g)  See  infra,  Sects.  51-52  and  see  21  Edward  IV,  70;  2  Richard 
III,  2.  The  Welchman's  Case,  Popham,  209  (1656)  a.  c.;  Latch,  166 
(1662)  ;  King  v.  Parker,  2  Levinz,  141  (1675)  ;  Coroner  of  Mont- 
gomery's Case,  Noy,  87  (1625);  Fitzherbert's  Abridgment  Title  Cor- 
oners, 107;  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  51;  2  Hale's  Pleas  of 
the  Crown,  58;  Hale's  Summary,  170;  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown, 
c  9,  Sect.  23. 

(89) 


90    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

be  super  visium  corporis  or  it  was  void  (h).  Not  only  was 
an  inquest  otherwise  taken  of  no  effect,  but  the  coroner 
was  criminally  to  blame  (*').  According  to  the  statute  (£) 
"when  the  coroners  *  *  *  have  command  from  the 
king's  bailiff  *  *  *  to  go  where  any  are  slain  or  suddenly 
dead  *  *  *  they  ought  to  go  forthwith  *  *  *  and  *  *  * 
make  inquiry." 

Sect.  46.  Various  views  have  been  taken  of  the  stat- 
ute: Lord  Hale  says  (/)  sudden  deaths  may  be  of  these 
kinds:  I.  Ex  visitatione  die;  2.  per  infortnnium,  where  no 
other  had  a  hand  in  it,  as  where  a  man  falls  from  a  horse 
or  cart;  3.  by  his  own  hand  as  felo  de  se;  4.  by  the  hand 
of  another  where  the  offender  is  not  known  and,  5.  by  the 
hand  of  another  where  the  offender  is  known  whether  by  mur- 
der, manslaughter,  se  defendo  or  per  infortunvum,  but  in  all 
these  cases  the  coroner  was  to  inquire  (m).  In  the  first  case 
above  stated  there  was  no  more  to  be  done  but  return  the 
inquest  to  the  next  general  gaol  delivery  by  the  statute  of 
Third  Henry  VII,  chapter  i.  In  the  second  the  coroner 
was  required  not  only  to  return  his  inquest  to  the  gaol  de- 
livery, but  to  inquire  of  his  deodand,  seize  and  deliver  the 
same  to  the  township  which  was  to  be  answerable  to  the 
king  therefor.  This  was  done  under  the  statute  of  fourth 
Edward  I.  In  the  third  case  the  special  matter  ought  to  be 
found  and  what  goods  the  criminal  had  and  they  were  to  be 
seized  and  delivered  to  the  township  which  was  to  be  an- 
swerable as  before.  The  coroner  bound  over  the  first 
finders  to  the  next  gaol  delivery.  In  the  fourth  case  the 
jury  was  required  to  specifically  find  the  culprit  unknown; 
it  then  became  the  duty  of  the  coroner  to  bind  over  the 

(A)  Supra,  note  (g)  Anonymous,  Ventris,  352  (1680).  The  view 
was  also  important  because  in  the  return  the  manner  of  death  must 
be  stated,  the  place,  length  and  depth  of  the  wound,  etc.  See  Post, 
Sect.  57. 

(t)  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  290;  Umfreville's  Lex  Coro- 
natoris  245 ;  Mr.  Petty's  MS.  of  33  Edward  I,  there  cited. 

(&)  i  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  40,  but  see  3  Henry  VII,  c  I,  Sect. 
2;  2  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  510  (1487). 

(/)  2  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  62. 

(m)  How  far  from  the  solid  rule  of  law  our  county  courts  have 
wandered  will  appear  later,  see  Sects.  78  to  93,  all  but  the  fifth  di- 
vision have  been  wiped  out  and  a  part  of  that  is  gone.  The  fact  that 
the  law  of  deodand  has  been  abolished  is  given  as  an  excuse  but  it 
is  a  complete  non  sequitur. 


CORONERS'  INQUESTS  IN  ENGLAND  91 

first  finders  to  the  next  gaol  delivery  and  return,  his  exam- 
ination together  with  his  inquisition  according  to  the  stat- 
ute of  i  and  2  Phillip  &  Mary,  chapter  13  (n).  In  the  fifth 
case  the  coroner  ought  to  proceed  to  inquire  more  spe- 
cifically as  we  shall  see  later. 

Lord  Hale  is  not  wrong  in  what  he  states.  An  ancient 
authority  tells  us  the  coroner  inquired  of  all  those  who 
are  killed  feloniously  or  by  misadventure  out  of  houses  or 
otherwise  (0).  But  as  time  wore  on  this  rule  came  to  be 
limited.  We  have  numerous  examples  in  the  rolls  printed 
by  the  Selden  Society  of  inquisitions  upon  persons  "sud- 
denly dead"  who  were  not  killed.  The  ancient  writers 
seem  to  contemplate  that  the  coroner  should  only  act  where 
a  man  is  killed  (/>).  Some  expressly  say  "killed  by  felony 
or  misadventure"  (<?),  yet  even  the  Mirror  leaves  open  the 
possibility  of  a  death  by  an  unknown  cause  which  the  au- 
thor is  pleased  to  call  a  "visitation  of  God"  (r).  The  dis- 
tinction between  a  sudden  death  from  perfectly  natural 
causes  and  one  which  requires  the  coroner's  attention  is  at 
best  shadowy  (s).  The  trend  of  the  decisions  has  been 
toward  restraining  the  coroner's  jurisdiction  (t).  So  East 
tells  us  (u)  "if  a  party  died  of  a  fever  or  apparant  visita- 
tion of  God  there  is  no  call  for  the  coroner  to  act"  (z/). 
The  coroner  was  to  use  his  sound  discretion  as  to  when  he 


(n)  And  note  the  ancient  manner  of  inquest  whether  by  coroners 
or  justices  in  Eyre  was  i.  Quis  premis  inventurt  2.  An  male 
creditur?  If  so,  then  if  he  were  present  he  might  be  arraigned  if  absent 
they  went  on  the  outlawry  against  him,  but  if  the  jury  answered  non 
male  creditur  he  was  discharged,  35  Henry  VI,  153,  Brooke's  Abridg- 
ment Conspiracy,  4. 

(o)  22  Assize,  94. 

(p)  Mirror,  c  i,  Sect.  13,  and  Britton,  c  i,  Sect.  10-12;  Flcta, 
Book  i,  c  25,  Sect.  2,  the  idea  seems  to  be  that  of  killing  rather  than 
dying. 

(q)  Mirror,  c  i,  Sect.  13;  Bracton,  c  i,  Sect.  5  (Homicide  or  any- 
thing of  that  nature,  Fleta  Lib.  i,  cap.  25). 

(r)  Mirror,  c  i,  Sect.  13. 

(s)  See  the  distinctions  drawn  in  Part  II. 

(f)  The  case  of  King  v.  the  Justices  of  Kent,  n  East,  228  (1809) 
began  this  tendency  and  see  Part  II,  Chapter  VI,  as  to  the  modern 
rule. 

(«)   i  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  378. 

(v)  See  Sect.  34  where  this  question  of  the  duty  of  the  coroner  to 
act  where  the  party  is  dead  by  "visitation  of  God"  is  discussed  and 
see  the  act  of  3  Henry  VII,  supra. 


92    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

should  hold  an  inquest;  yet  the  same  author  tells  us  there 
ought  to  be  at  least  a  reasonable  suspicion  that  the  deceased 
came  to  his  death  by  unnatural  means  («/)•  We  cannot 
altogether  agree  with  the  learned  author.  It  is  certain 
the  inquest  was  not  to  be  taken  merely  because  of  the  so- 
licitation or  procurement  of  the  friends  of  the  deceased  (x~), 
but  it  should  not  be  held  unless  the  coroner  was  called  upon 
to  act.  Under  the  early  authorities  it  would  seem  that 
suddenness  was  sufficient,  but  even  in  1680,  it  is  doubtful  if 
the  mere  fact  that  a  death  was  "sudden"  was  enough  to 
justify  an  inquest.  It  ought  to  be  more  than  "sudden." 
It  would  be  going  too  far  to  say  it  should  be  suspicious  or 
even  unnatural,  the  inquest  ought  not  only  to  be  taken 
where  there  is  suspicion  of  felony  or  unnatural  death,  but 
also  where  there  is  a  reasonable  possibility  of  felony  or  un- 
natural death. 

Sect.  47.  When  notice  was  given  to  the  coroner  it  was 
his  duty  to  issue  a  precept  to  the  constables  (3;)  of  the 
four  (2)  five  or  six  (a)  next  townships  to  return  a  com- 
petent number  of  good  and  lawful  men  of  their  townships 
before  him  at  a  place  designated  to  make  inquisition  touch- 
ing the  matter  of  which  he  had  been  notified  (b).  This 
was  to  be  done  and  the  day  for  the  inquest  set  as  soon  as 
possible  after  the  death  (c),  and  the  view  should  be  had  if 
possible  while  the  body  was  in  the  same  position,  and  other 
circumstances  as  when  the  person  died  (d).  Blackstone 
says  the  coroner  must  sit  at  the  very  place  where  the  death 
happened  (e).  While  it  may  seem  presumptuous  to  disa- 

(w)  i  East's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  382. 

(jr)  Umfreville's  Lex  Coronatoris,  186;  Britton,  c  i,  Sect.  25. 

(y)  Or  the  constable  of  the  hundred,  2  Male's  Pleas  of  the  Crown, 
59,  or  the  hundredor,  Mirror,  c.  I,  Sect.  13,  or  to  the  sheriff  or  bailiff 
of  the  place,  Britton,  c  i,  Sect.  5 ;  Fleta  Lib.  I,  cap.  25. 

(*)  Britton,  c  i,  Sect.  5,  Mirror,  c  i ;  Sect.  13;  2  Hale's  Pleas  of 
the  Crown,  59. 

(a)  The  only  authority  which  says  "five  or  six"  vills  might  be 
summoned  is  the  Statute  of  4  Edward  I ;  i  Statute  of  the  Realm,  40. 

(&)  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  59. 

(c)  Britton,  c.  I,  Sect.  5;  Mirror,  c.  i,  Sect.  13. 

(<f)  King  v.  Solgard,  Andrews,  231  (1738),  s.  c.  2  Strange,  1097. 
In  that  case  the  Chief  Justice  said  there  was  a  sufficient  reason  for  the 
removal  of  the  body,  viz.,  to  prevent  infection. 

(e)  i  Commentaries,  348. 


CORONERS'  INQUESTS  IN  ENGLAND  93 

gree  with  so  learned  an  authority  we  are  forced  to  the  con- 
clusion this  was  not  the  law.  The  inquest  need  not  be  taken 
at  the  very  same  place  where  the  body  was  found  (/)  nor 
where  the  view  was  had  (g),  the  inquest  has  the  right  to  ad- 
journ to  a  more  convenient  place  (/t)  and  time,  but  the 
inquisition  being  a  judicial  proceeding  should  therefore  not 
be  taken  on  Sunday  which  is  a  "dies  non  judices"  whereon 
no  judicial  act  could  be  done  (i). 

Sect.  48.  The  proceedings  of  the  coroner  at  the  in- 
quest and  the  scope  of  his  inquiry  are  more  or  less  matters 
of  unwritten  law  and  therefore  varied  from  time  to  time. 
In  general,  it  may  be  said  that  the  coroner  inquired  of  all 
those  who  were  killed  (/)  feloneously  or  by  misadventure 
(&)  out  of  houses  (/)  or  otherwise  (m),  who  first  found 
the  body  (n),  whether  men  or  women  (0),  and  of  what 
age,  whether  minors  or  not  (/>),  and  these  he  let  by  main- 
prize  (g),  unless  the  deceased  had  had  rites  of  the  Church 
(r),  all  the  circumstances  relative  to  the  death  (j)  and  all 
things  that  occasioned  it,  whether  it  came  from  God  or  man 

(/)  3  Bulstrode,  173. 

(g)  The  Welchmen's  Case,  Popham,  209  (1656),  s.  c.  Latch,  166 
(1662)  ;  see  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c.  9,  Sect.  25. 

(h)  2  Hawkins'  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c.  9,  Sect.  25. 

(i)  Rex  v.  Mackalley,  9  Coke's  Reports,  666  ( 1612)  ;  2  Burn's  Jus- 
tices, 30;  Umfreville's  Lex  Coronatoris,  177;  Jervis,  p.  279.  If  it  is 
held  on  Sunday  it  is  void,  King  v.  Bunney,  2  Saunders,  291. 

(/)  22  Assize,  94;  Bracton,  f.  I2ib;  4  Edward  I,  I  Statutes  of  the 
Realm,  40. 

(jfe)  22  Assize,  94;  Mirror,  c.  I,  Sect.  13;  Britton,  c.  I,  Sect.  9. 

(/)    22  Assize,  94. 

(m)  Fleta  Lib.  II,  cap.  25,  Sect.  2. 

(»)  22  Assize,  94;  6  Viner's  Abridgment,  243;  4  Edward  I,  supra; 
Britton,  c.  i,  Sect.  24;  Mirror,  c.  I,  Sect.  13,  qualifies  this  to  cases 
where  the  death  was  due  to  accident,  Fleta,  Lib.  II,  cap.  25,  Sect.  2. 

(o)  22  Assize,  94;  Bracton,  f.  I2ib;  4  Edward  I,  supra;  Britton, 
c.  i,  Sect.  24;  Fleta,  Lib.  II,  cap.  25,  Sect.  2. 

(P)  22  Assize,  94;  Bracton,  f.  I2ib;  Britton,  c.  i,  Sect.  24;  4  Ed- 
ward I,  supra,  who  says  they  should  note  also  of  what  discretion  they 
are. 

(q)  22  Assize,  94;  4  Edward  I,  supra;  Fleta,  Lib.  2,  cap.  25,  Sects. 
4  and  6. 

(r)  30  and  31  Edward  I,  522,  and  see  Bracton,  f.  135. 

(s)  Keilw.,  61-67  Queen  v.  Clerk,  Salkeld,  377  (1702) ;  Mir- 
ror, c.  i,  Sect  13;  Britton,  c.  I,  Sect.  12;  Fitzherbert's  Abridgment, 
title  Coroners,  292;  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  51;  i  Hale's 
Pleas  of  the  Crown,  422-4;  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  58-62;  2 
Hawkins'  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c.  9,  Sect.  28;  Fleta,  Lib.  II,  cap.  25, 
Sect.  2. 


94    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

(f).  He  was  to  find  out  if  the  man  was  killed,  or  if  he  killed 
himself  (u),  or  if  the  death  were  caused  by  accident  which 
might  be  determined  by  the  hurts  on  the  body  (z/).  Thus, 
if  the  accident  happened  by  drowning,  whether  it  was  in  the 
sea  or  in  fresh  water,  and  if  in  the  latter,  whether  in  a  mote 
or  ditch,  and  how  it  came  to  pass  that  the  person  was 
drowned  (w),  who  owned  the  vessel  if  he  fell  from  a  ves- 
sel, and  if  the  drowning  was  in  a  well,  the  inquiry  should 
be  as  to  who  owned  the  well  (#),  and  whether  it  was  dan- 
gerous to  the  community  (3;).  If  the  death  was  caused  by 
a  fall,  the  inquiry  should  be  whether  it  was  from  a  mill,  a 
horse,  or  a  tree  (z),  and  how  the  fall  occurred  (a).  If  from 
a  mill,  what  things  were  moving  in  the  mill  should  be  ascer- 
tained, who  owned  it  and  the  value  of  the  utensils  moving 
toward  the  death,  in  order  to  determine  the  value  of  the 
deodand  (b}.  If  the  accident  resulted  in  a  killing,  the 
coroner  should  inquire  if  it  were  done  by  a  man,  a  woman, 
a  beast,  or  a  thing  (c).  If  done  by  a  beast,  whether  it  was 
a  dog  or  other  beast  and  whether  set  on  by  any  man  (d). 
If  the  death  was, done  by  killing,  the  coroner  should  inquire 
whether  by  felony  or  misadventure,  or  se  defendo,  who 
caused  the  death,  whether  he  was  killed  at  a 
wrestling  match,  or  tavern  or  other  assembly  (e\  and  the 
manner  of  the  killing  (/),  whether  he  was  killed  in  a  house 
or  in  the  fields  (g),  if  he  were  killed,  where  found,  or  killed 

(<)  Mirror,  c.  i,  Sect.  13,  from  famine,  poverty  or  common  pesti- 
lence; with  or  without  malice  prepense,  Britton,  c.  I,  Sect.  26. 

(«)  Anonymous  Jenkins,  202,  in  pi.  24;   Mirror,  c.   I,   Sect.   13; 
Britton,  c.  i,  Sect.  13. 

(v)  4  Edward  I,  i  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  29. 
(w)  Britton,  c.  i,  Sect.  26;  c.  i,  Sect.  2. 
(*)  Ibid,  c.  i,  Sect.  3. 

(y)  The  reason  being  that  the  owner  was  to  be  amerced  at  the 
presentment  and  obliged  to  fill  it  up.    Umfreville's  Lex  Coronatoris. 
(*)  Britton,  c.  i,  Sect.  27. 
(a)  King  v.  Cross,  Keble,  744  (1664). 
(fr)  Mirror,  c.  i,  Sect.  13. 

(c)  Britton,  c.  i,  Sect.  29. 

(d)  Britton,  c.  i,  Sect.  13. 

(e)  3  Henry  VII,  c.  I,  Sect.  2;  2  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  510  (1487)  ; 
Mirror,  c.  I,  Sect.  13 ;  Bracton,  f .  i2ib,  4  Edward  I,  supra. 

Britton,  c.  i,  Sect.  10;  see  Fleta  Book,  2  cap.  25. 
(/)  Britton,  c.  I,  Sect.  10. 
(g)  Bracton,  f.  I2ib;  4  Edward  I   (supra). 


CORONERS'  INQUESTS  IN  ENGLAND  95 

elsewhere  and  brought  there  (h),  and  should  trace  his  steps 
and  find  where  he  lodged  the  night  before,  and  whether  he 
was  known  or  unknown  (t),  and  whether  any  one  had 
threatened  his  life  or  limb  (&),  and  if  so,  who  were  their 
pledges  to  keep  the  peace  (/).  If  it  was  found  to  be  mur- 
der, the  coroner  ascertained  who  were  the  aiders  (m), 
abbettors  and  consenters  (n),  and  who  were  present  when 
the  murder  was  committed  (0),  if  the  hue  and  cry  were 
raised  (/>),  who  were  accessories  before  the  fact  (q), 
but  not  the  accessories  after  the  fact  (r),  and  whether  prin- 
cipals fled  (s),  if  not,  they  were  to  be  seized  and  turned 
over  to  the  sheriff  .(t).  In  the  case  of  murder  or  man- 
slaughter, the  coroner  should  inquire  of  all  the  goods  and 
chattels,  lands  and  tenements  (u),  of  the  principals  and  ac- 

(&)   Mirror,  c.  i,  Sect.  13. 

(i)  Bracton,  f.  I2ib;  4  Edward  I,  supra;  Fleta  Book  i,  Chapter  25, 
Sect.  6;  Fleta  tells  us  the  host  of  the  tavern  where  he  last  lodged  is 
to  be  attached,  ibid. 

(&)    Mirror,  c.  i,  Sect.  13;  Britton,  c.  i,  Sect.  14. 

(/)    Britton,  c.  i,  Sect.  14. 

(m)  Evidently  the  authorities  refer  to  those  present  aiding,  abet- 
ting and  counselling,  though  they  do  not  say  so;  see  2  Hale's  Pleas  of 
the  Crown,  63. 

(n)  3  Henry  VII,  c.  I,  Sect.  2;  2  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  510  (1487)  ; 
Bracton,  f.  I2ib;  Britton,  c.  i,  Sect.  10;  Hale  expressly  says  those 
present  and  makes  a  distinct  class  of  accessories,  2  Tleas  of  the  Crown, 
63. 

(o)  3  Henry  VII,  c.  I,  Sect.  2,  supra;  both  young  and  old  males 
and  females,  Britton,  c.  i,  Sect.  10. 

(/>)  Mirror,  c.  I,  Sect.  13. 

(q)  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  63;  4  Henry  VII,  i8b;  Daliston, 
32  pi  19;  Jenks,  177  pi.  54. 

(r)  See  infra,  Anon.  Moore,  29  pi.  95;  4  Edward  I,  Sect.  2;  3 
Henry  VII,  c.  i ;  4  Henry  VII,  17;  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown, 
183 ;  Britton  says  he  is  to  inquire  as  to  accessories  after  the  fact,  c.  i, 
Sect.  10,  and  such  cases  are  to  be  found,  Selden  Society's  "Select 
Coroners  Rolls,"  30;  but  from  the  nature  of  the  coroners'  duies  such 
an  inquiry  is  no  proper  part  of  it.  Therefore  "fugam  fecit"  of  one 
accessory  after  the  fact  is  void,  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown, 
183-4.  See  4  Henry  VII,  i8b. 

(j)  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  63;  Britton,  c.  i,  Sect.  12,  for 
if  they  find  he  fled,  "nay  though  the  petit  jury  upon  his  trial  find 
him  not  guilty  nor  that  he  fled,  yet  this  inquisition  before  the  coroner 
shall  cause  a  forfeiture  of  his  goods  for  it  is  not  traversable."  Anony- 
mous, Dyer,  238b;  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  i83b;  I  Hale's 
Pleas  of  the  Crown,  363-417;  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  63;  Fleta, 
Lib.  II,  cap.  25,  Sects.  2  and  7. 

(0  Fleta,  Lib.  2,  cap.  25,  Sects.  3  and  5. 

(«)  Supra,  note  (j)  ;  4  Edward  I,  supra;  Britton,  c.  I,  Sects.  13 
and  22;  Fleta  says  this  is  only  done  where  he  had  fled,  Book  2,  cap. 
25,  Sect.  7. 


96    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

ccssories,  and  they  had  to  be  appraised  and  sold  and  the 
money  turned  over  to  the  township  to  keep  (z/).  If  the 
person  died  in  prison,  the  coroner  must  inquire  whether 
he  died  from  long  imprisonment  or  by  torture  (w). 

But  the  scope  of  the  coroner's  inquest  was  even  broader 
than  this.  Not  only  was  he  to  inquire  of  the  crime  where 
crime  had  been  committed,  but  he  had  a  more  general  au- 
thority to  inquire  into  the  reason  of  all  deaths  by  misad- 
venture and  prevent  a  repetition  thereof.  Thus,  where  a 
man  fell  through  a  bridge,  the  inquest  might  find  there  was  a 
nuisance  (.*•),  and  if  a  person  be  drowned  in  a  pit,  the  cor- 
oner could  command  the  vill  to  stop .  it  and  if  it  be  not 
done  the  vill  might  be  amerced  in  eyre  or  before  the  jus- 
tices of  gaol  delivery  (2). 

Sect.  49.  The  inquest  must  be  a  good  one,  if  it  were 
not,  it  was  the  duty  of  the  coroner  to  take  another  (s). 
If  the  coroner  had  reason  to  suspect  that  the  truth  was 
concealed  or  not  fully  investigated  he  was  to  cause  another 
inquest  to  be  taken  (J),  but  this  was  done  only  with  great- 
est caution.  If  the  first  was  informal,  a  second  could  be 
taken  and  the  body  could  be  disinterred  in  order  that  it 
be  taken  super  visum  corporis  (M).  It  was  considered 
better  practice,  however,  to  obtain  leave  of  court  if  the  body 
had  already  been  buried  (z/).  So  if  the  coroner  took  an 


(v)  Britton,  f.  7;  4  Edward  I;  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  63; 
where  the  learned  author  says:  "How  far  is  this  altered  by  I  Richard 
III,  cap.  3"?  See  I  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  365,  cap.  27. 

(w)  Mirror,  c.  I,  Sect.  13. 

(T)  Hall's  Case,  Allen,  51  (1648),  and  the  vill  has  been  amerced 
had  it  not  been  that  they  did  not  find  that  the  vill  was  bound  to  repair 
it;  and  see  Keilw.,  61. 

(*)  8  Edward  II,  Corpn.  416.  Fleta  tells  us  the  owner  should  be 
fined  and  enjoined  to  provide  guards,  lib.  I,  cap.  25,  Sect.  10. 

(s)  I  Strange,  22-533;  Queen  v.  Clerk,  i  Salkeld,  377  (1702); 
Staunde ford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  Book  2,  cap.  52. 

(0  Britton,  c.  I,  Sect.  u.  This  was  done  in  1270,  Selden  Society, 
"Select  Coroners  Rolls,"  25. 

(«)  Where  the  first  inquest  was  informal,  all  the  coroners  fourteen 
days  afterwards  took  the  body  up  and  held  the  inquisition  over  again 
on  the  suggestion  of  Sergeant  Janney,  whose  servant  had  been  killed, 
and  the  second  inquest  was  held  valid,  2  Richard  III,  2  pi.  5,  and 
vide  21,  Edward  IV,  70-71,  and  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown, 
Book  2,  cap.  52. 

(v)  Where  the  body  has  been  buried  and  the  inquest  is  afterwards 
quashed,  there  must  be  leave  of  court  to  take  it  up,  Berkley's  Case,  2 


CORONERS'  INQUESTS  IN  ENGLAND  97 

inquisition  without  view  of  the  body  and  afterwards  took 
another  super  visum  corporis,  the  second  was  good,  for  the 
first  was  absolutely  void  (w).  But  if  the  first  inquest  was 
good  and  afterwards  another  coroner  took  another  in- 
quisition, the  second  was  absolutely  void  because  the  first 
was  good  (x}.  But  once  the  inquest  had  been  filed  it  was 
not  traversable  (y).  The  proper  practice  to  get  it  off  the 
record  seems  to  have  been  to  petition  for  a  melius  in- 
quirendum  and  the  petition  must  be  accompanied  by  an 
affidavit  of  a  male  se  gessit  on  the  part  of  the  coroner  (2). 

Sect.  50.  Having  now  considered  the  subject-matter 
of  the  inquisition,  the  question  naturally  arises  as  to  how  it 
was  taken.  The  first  factor  in  the  inquest  was  the  coroner 
whose  duties  in  this  regard  we  have  considered,  the  second 
factor  was  the  jury.  When  notified  of  the  necessity  to  act, 
the  coroner  issued  a  precept  to  the  sheriff,  constable  or 
bailiff,  as  the  case  might  be,  to  summon  a  jury  (a).  If 
there  was  any  default  either  by  the  constable  or  the  jurors, 
the  coroner  made  a  record  of  it,  and  they  were  amerced; 
"anciently,"  says  Lord  Hale,  "before  the  justices  in  eyre, 


Sid.  101,  I  Salk.  377.  In  Rex  v.  Saunders,  I  Strange,  167  (1719),  the 
Court  said  the  coroner  could  not  take  the  body  up  without  leave  of 
court.  In  Anonymous,  i  Strange,  533  (1723),  the  Court  granted  a 
rule  for  the  coroner  of  Wenlock,  in  the  County  of  Salop,  to  take  up 
a  body  in  order  for  a  new  inquisition,  the  former  having  been  quashed. 
Indeed,  in  King  v.  Bunney,  Carthew  72,  i  Salk.  190,  it  was  decided  an 
inquest  might  be  held  a  year  after  the  death  and  still  be  good,  but  it 
was  agreed  that  the  coroner  is  not  justified  in  disinterring  a  body 
which  has  been  buried  for  more  than  a  year,  "for  it  is  a  common 
nuisance  and  insufferable."  But  note  an  inquest  taken  a  year  after 
the  body  was  buried  has  been  received  and  filed,  and  this  seems  to  be 
in  the  discretion  of  the  Court,  I  Str.  22-533,  I  Salk.  377. 

(«;)  Wingfield's  Case,  21  Edward  IV,  70-71  (2  Kale's  Pleas  of  the 
Crown,  59). 

(x)  Richard  II,  coron.  107;  Cromp.  Just.,  229;  2  Hale's  Pleas 
of  the  Crown,  59;  Fitzherbert,  107;  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown, 
Book  2,  cap.  52. 

(v)  King  v.  Heatherfall,  3  Modern,  80;  though  this  has  been  made 
a  subject  of  gravest  doubt,  Post,  Sect.  58.  The  proper  practice  is  said 
to  be  to  move  to  quash  the  inquest  before  it  is  filed.  But  the  reason 
given  is  doubtful,  a  melius  inquiriendum,  not  being  super  visum  cor- 
Poris,  is  traversable ;  but  so  is  the  coroner's  return,  Post,  Sect.  58. 

(2)  Miles  Berkley's  Case,  2  Siderfen,  90-101-144,  s.  c. ;  2  Keble, 
859;  King  v.  Heatherfall,  3  Modern,  80;  4  Coke's  Reports,  57;  Croke's 
Elizabeth,  371;  King  v.  Bunney,  Carth  72  I  Salkeld.  190;  Queen  v. 
Clerk,  i  Salkeld,  377;  Rex  v.  Saunders,  Strange,  107;  Anonymous, 
Strange,  533. 

(a)  See  ante,  Sect.  26. 


98    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

but  now  before  the  justices  of  gaol  delivery"  (fc).  The 
coroner,  it  would  seem,  could  not  fine  the  jurors  or  con- 
stables for  non  appearance,  but  cotdd  only  present  his 
record  to  the  sessions  (c). 

The  coroner  made  his  inquest  by  four  vills  (d),  yet 
he  might  summon  more  in  his  discretion  and  probably 
abused  this  power.  Lord  Coke  tells  us  (e)  the  "coroner 
would  summon  many  townships,  sometimes  the  whole  hun- 
dred where  twelve  would  serve  to  make  the  inquiry"  (/). 
To  remedy  this  the  statute  of  Marlbridge  (1267)  in  chap- 
ter 24,  provides : 

"The  justices  in  eyre  from  henceforth  shall  not  amerce 
townships  in  their  circuits  because  all  being  twelve  years 
old  came  not  afore  the  sheriffs  and  coroners  to  take  an  in- 
quiry of  robberies,  burnings  of  houses,  or  other  things  per- 
taining to  the  Crown  so  that  there  come  sufficient  out  of 
those  towns  by  whom  such  inquests  may  be  made  full 
except  enquests  for  the  death  of  a  man  whereat  all  being 
twelve  years  of  age  ought  to  appear  unless  they  have  reason- 
able cause  for  absence"  (0). 

Sect.  51.  All  persons  who  were  summoned  were 
bound  to  appear.  No  particular  qualifications  by  estate  was 
necessary  to  those  who  had  the  right  and  duty  to  take  part 
in  the  inquest  (h).  The  jurors  were  not  challengeable  by 
either  party  (i),  but  it  was  deemed  wiser  to  admit  such 
challenges  as  the  parties  desired  to  make,  as  we  shall  see 
later.  The  jurors  were,  however,  required  to  be  probi  et 


(b)  2  Kale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  59. 

(c)  Mirror,  c.  i,  Sect.  13. 

(d)  See  Post,  Sects.  51,  52. 

(e)  2  Institutes,  147. 

(/)  A  case  dated  1338,  where  four  townships  were  amerced  for  not 
coming,  appears  in  Select  Coroners  Rolls,  42. 

(g)  i  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  25  (1267). 

(/»)  Jervis  on  Coroners,  252.    In  1305,  the  king  ordered  an  inquiry 

whether  the  coroners  put  poor  people  on  the  jury  to  spare  the  rich, 

Political  Science  Quarterly,  656  (1892)  ;  where  the  inquest  was  to  be 

had  over  one  who  died  in  prison,  the  jury  was  to  be  composed  of  six 

laymen  and  six  prisoners,  Jervis,  39;  Umfreville,  213. 

(i)  Mirror,  c.  i,  Sect.  13;  Britton,  f.  6a;  Withipole's  Case,  Croke's 
Charles,  134;  Jones,  108-9;  Ley.,  81  (1628)  ;  Crompton's  Justices,  226b. 


CORONERS'  INQUESTS  IN  ENGLAND  99 

legalis  homines  (&).  All  men  are  presumed  to  be  such  (/), 
but  the  contrary  could  be  shown  (m).  Aliens,  convicts  and 
outlaws  are  not  probi  et  legalis,  and  it  would  seem  that  if 
any  such  were  impannelled  on  the  coroner's  inquest  it  would 
be  a  good  plea  to  avoid  the  inquisition  (n).  In  the  case  of 
William  Withipole  (0}  it  was  pleaded,  to  the  coroner's 
inquisition,  upon  the  statute  of  II  Henry  IV,  chapter  9, 
that  several  of  the  jury  were  nominated  by  the  foreman  two 
were  outlaws  in  actions  of  debt;  upon  which  it  was  agreed 
by  the  several  justices  and  barons  that  the  statute  applied 
to  inquests  before  the  coroner  and  that  an  outlaw  in  per- 
sonal actions  was  not  probus  et  legalis  homo  to  be  sworn  on 
an  inquest  and  might  be  challenged  for  that  cause  (/>). 

The  point  was  not,  however,  judicially  determined,  for 
the  case  went  off  on  other  grounds,  but  it  is  deserving  of 
consideration  inasmuch  as  it  shows  that  outlaws  in  actions 
personal  are  not  probi  et  legalis  (g).  It  would  seem,  there- 
fore, although  it  is  agreed  that  jurors  upon  inquests  are 
not  challengeable  (r)  to  be  advisable  to  reject  from  cor- 
oner's juries,  persons  under  any  of  these  disabilities  and  to 
allow  a  challenge  properly  made;  for  not  swearing  of  a 
juryman  is  of  less  consequence  than  the  Irisk  and  hazard  of 
a  plea  to  the  inquisition.  Jurors  ought  also  to  be  house- 
holders and  to  be  persons  who  are  indifferent  to  the  subject 
matter  of  the  inquiry  (j),  but  if  they  were  not  the  inquest 
was  not  void  therefor.  Their  number  was  immaterial 
provided  twelve  agreed  (f )  but  if  there  were  less  than  twelve 
the  inquisition  was  bad  (w). 


(k)  Lord  Raymond,  1303,  for  if  an  indictment  be  made  by  a  jury 
one  of  whom  is  not  probus  (e.  g.,  an  outlaw),  it  is  void,  3  Coke's  Insti- 
tutes, 34.  See  i  Wms.  Saunders,  363. 

(/)  Stephens'  Digest  of  Criminal  Procedure,  Art.  212;  4  Justices 
of  the  Peace  (Eng.),  535,  quoting  Coke,  but  without  citation. 

(m)   Stephens'  Digest  of  Criminal  Procedure,  Article  212. 

(n)  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  155. 

(0)  Croke's  Charles,  134-147;  Jones,  198-9;  Ley,  81   (1628). 

(P)  See  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  59. 

(9)  The  inquisition  was  quashed. 

(r)  Mirror,  c.  i,  Sect.  13;  Britton,  c.  2,  Sect,  n  (Nichols  Edition). 

(j)  Fortescue  de  Laudibus,  c.  25. 

(0  Smith's  Case,  Comberback,  386  (1697). 

(u)  Cobat's  Case,  i  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  :6r,  note. 


100    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

Although  by  the  statute  de  officio  coronatore  (v)  the 
coroner  is  directed  to  summon  his  jury  out  of  the  four, 
five  or  six  next  adjacent  townships  and  by  the  ancient 
practice  it  is  usually  so  expressed  in  the  inquisition,  yet  that 
statute  being  merely  directory,  the  rule  did  not  always  pre- 
vail, and  no  precise  number  of  vills  was  necessary;  the 
neighborhood  being  supposed  to  be  the  best  judge  of  the 
fact  to  be  inquired  into;  for  which  reason  an  inquisition  was 
good  if  it  purported  upon  its  face  to  have  been  taken  by 
jurors  from  the  country  at  large  (w),  for  the  court  would 
intend  that  the  inquisition  was  of  the  four  next  vills  and 
according  to  the  statute.  The  coroner  was  not  bound  to  re- 
turn particularly  that  the  vills  are  "proxime  adjecentium" 
(y),  but  the  contrary  might  be  shown  (2}. 

In  Rex  v.  Crosse  (a)  it  was  objected  "that  the  cor- 
oner's inquisition  super  visum  corporis  did  not  purport  to 
have  been  taken  according  to  the  statute  de  officio  corona- 
tore  *  *  *  by  the  oaths  of  those  of  the  next  vills  but  by 
men  of  the  parish  of  Axminster,"  but  the  exception  was 
overruled.  The  same  exception  was  taken  and  overruled 
in  Barclee's  case  (fc)  and  since  the  case  of  Sir  John  Pettys 
(c)  where  the  inquisition  was  taken  by  a  jury  "de  civitate 
Norwici"  and  Twisden,  J.  (d)  overruled  the  motion  to 
quash,  no  similar  exception  has  been  taken  (e). 

Over  this  meeting  of  the  four  vills  the  coroner  presided 
(/).  The  jury  were  judges  of  the  facts  and  the  coroner  had 
no  right  to  instruct  them  thereon,  but  on  the  law  he  could 
instruct  them  (#)  and  they  were  bound  to  pay  strict  at- 

(v)  i  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  40. 

(w)  Jervis  on  Coroners,  38;  but,  contra,  Welchmen's  Case,  Pop- 
ham,  209  (1656) ;  s.  c.  Latch,  166  (1662)  ;  Sed.  quare.  See  2  Coke's  In- 
stitutes, 354. 

(y)  i  Siderfen,  204  (1664);  King  v.  Cross,  Popham,  210  (1656); 
sec  Bntton,  f.  7a. 

(*)  Berkley's  Case,  2  Siderfen,  90-101-144  (1658)  ;  see  Welchmen's 
Case,  Popham,  209;  s.  c.  Latch,  166  (1662). 
(a)  i  Siderfen,  204;  i  Keble,  723. 
(&)  2  Siderfen,  144. 

(c)  2  Keble,  705-7335  also  George  Bradbury,  MS. 
(</)  Citing  Berkley's  Case,  supra. 
(e)  Jervis  on  Coroners,  254. 
(/)  i  Blackstone's  Commentaries,  348. 
(ff)  Jervis  on  Coroners,  256. 


CORONERS'  INQUESTS  IN  ENGLAND  101 

tention  to  his  instructions  "ad  questionem  facti  non  re- 
spondent judices  ad  questionem  legis  non  respondent  jura- 
tores  (h). 

Sect.  52.  The  jury  appearing  they  were  to  be  sworn 
(t)  and  charged  by  the  coroner  to  inquire  upon  the  view 
of  the  body  how  the  party  came  to  his  death  (&).  The 
body  itself  was  a  large  part  of  the  evidence  and  so  the  jury 
must  be  sworn  super  visum  corporis  or  much  of  the  evi- 
dence would  be  given  with  the  jury  not  under  oath  (/). 
They  must,  moreover,  be  sworn  by  the  coroner  himself  (m). 

It  was  their  privilege  to  call  back  any  witness  who  had 
testified  before  them  to  ask  any  question  elucidatory  of  their 
inquiry,  and  they  were  entitled  to  the  opinion  of  the  coroner 
on  matters  of  law  (n).  In  early  times  they  might  have  re- 
turned a  verdict  without  any  evidence  before  them,  i.  e. 
from  their  own  cognizance  of  the  case,  but  as  the  whole 
system  of  the  jury  has  changed  it  came  to  be  considered 
best  that  those  who  knew  anything  about  the  case  should 
so  inform  the  coroner  who  should  then  not  swear  them  on 
the  jury  (/>). 

As  we  shall  see  later  the  jury  was  composed  of  twelve 
men  and  four  vills  (g)  in  early  times  (r).  Just  what  the 
relation  of  these  two  constituents  was,  it  is  difficult  to  as- 
certain. We  are  told  that  if  the  jury  were  not  unanimous 
the  coroner  took  their  poll  and  if  twelve  agreed  that  was  the 


(/»)  Vaughan's  Reports,  160. 

(i)  Umfrevilles  Lex  Coronatoris,  187;  Jervis  on  Coroners,  257; 
Britton,  c.  i,  Sect.  6.  The  form  of  oath  is  given  in  the  Mirror,  c.  i, 
Sect.  13.  It  is  too  lengthy  to  be  here  set  out,  especially  as  it  is  now 
obsolete.  It  appears  as  an  appendix. 

(k)  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  60. 

(/)  Jervis  on  Coroners,  256.  But  by  6  and  7  Victoria,  c.  83,  Sect. 
2,  they  need  not  view  the  body  at  the  same  time  with  the  coroner,  by 
Reg.  v.  Ingham,  5  Best  and  Smith  257,  or  be  sworn  super  visum  corporis. 

(m)  For  only  the  coroner  can  take  the  inquest,  ante,  Sect.  41; 
and  see  Rex  v.  Ferrand,  2  Barnwell  &  Alderson,  260. 

(n)  Jervis  on  Coroners,  257. 

(/>)  Jervis  on  Coroners,  258. 

(q)  Select  Coroners  Rolls,  40-41,  the  number  of  the  jury  was 
indeterminate,  at  Oxford  in  1297-1307,  22  to  30  served  on  the  jury. 
Rogers'  Documents,  150-168,  12,  13,  15,  21  at  Wallingford  Hist.  MSS. 
Com.  VI,  583,  ibid. 

(r)  1338,  1365,  respectively,  are  the  dates  of  the  two  cases  above 
quoted. 


102    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

verdict  of  the  jury,  but  if  no  twelve  could  agree  they  were 
to  be  kept  without  meat,  drink  or  fire  until  twelve  did 
agree  (s).  If  they  still  did  not  agree  the  coroner  could 
not  take  the  verdict,  but  they  should  be  fined  (/)•  In 
Travener's  case  (M)  the  jury  refused  to  give  up  their  ver- 
dict, so  the  coroner  adjourned  them  from  time  to  time  and 
from  place  to  place;  Fleming,  C.  J.,  hearing  of  the  case, 
wrote  to  the  coroner  not  to  take  a  verdict  of  them,  where- 
upon the  coroner  went  to  assize  at  Hertford  and  for  his 
discharge  acquainted  the  judges  with  it  and  the  jurors  were 
fined  and  the  indictment  was  taken  and  the  court  commended 
the  coroner  for  the  care  he  had  taken  in  the  business  (v}.  In 
view  of  the  composition  of  the  jury  it  is  not  strange  to 
find  it  recorded  in  Britton  (TV)  that  the  coroner  shall  not 
alter  his  enrollment  on  account  of  any  contrariety  in  their 
verdicts.  Umfreville  thus  annotates  this  paragraph: 

This  paragraph  is  darkly  expressed,  but  it  is  only  to 
be  enlightened  by  guess.  Does  he  mean  other  jurors  or 
other  evidence?  From  the  exclusion  of  the  paragraph  it 
might  seem  to  mean  another  jury,  but  this  cannot  be  for  the 
coroner  could  not  summon  a  second  jury.  It  must  refer 
to  the  different  opinion  of  the  different  vills,  which  Um- 
freville tells  us  often  caused  adjournments  of  the  inquests 
and  made  further  evidence  necessary.  When  they  could 
not  agree,  then  the  vills  were  separated  and  questioned  and 
the  verdict  of  each  vill  taken  and  final  verdict  of  the  in- 
quest was  the  one  in  which  the  majority  agreed. 

What  happened  if  they  finally  could  not  agree  does 
not  appear  ever  to  have  been  determined  (x)  but  in  prac- 
tice that  never  did.  We  have  indeed  one  case  where  they 
did  not  agree  in  1270,  two  of  the  townships  agreeing  and 
two  refusing  to  give  a  verdict,  saying  they  knew  nothing 
about  the  matter 


(s)  Jcrvis  on  Coroners,  258. 

(0  Travener's  Case,  3  Bulstrode,  173. 

(«)  3  Bulstrode,  173. 

(v)  See  Comberback,  368. 

(w)  C.  i,  Sect.  n. 

(*)  Stephens'  Digest  of  Criminal  Procedure,  Article  227. 

(y)  Select  Coroners  Rolls,  Selden  Society,  Vol.  9,  p.  25. 


CORONERS'  INQUESTS  IN  ENGLAND  103 

The  coroner  was  bound  to  accept  such  presentment  as 
the  jury  made  (2)  and  should  never  alter  his  enrollment 
of  their  verdict  (22}.  Therefore  in  a  case  in  which  after 
the  jury  had  been  sworn,  the  coroner  took  some  of  them 
off  and  they  found  a  verdict  of  non  compos  mentis,  although 
the  evidence  was  very  strong  that  it  should  have  been  felo 
de  se,  Holt,  C.  J.,  quashed  the  inquisition  and  said  there 
ought  to  be  an  information  against  the  coroner  (a).  The  cor- 
oner cannot,  by  way  of  punishment  for  not  finding  according 
to  the  evidence,  adjourn  the  jury  to  places  at  a  great  dis- 
tance from  where  the  fact  was  committed,  but  it  has  been 
held  an  adjournment  to  assize  is  proper  (6). 

There  is,  of  course,  the  old  question  as  to  whether  the 
jury  has  a  right  to  find  contrary  to  their  instructions,  but 
in  accordance  with  moral  right.  A  discussion  of  that 
question  belongs  properly  to  a  work  upon  juries  in  general, 
and  not  to  a  discussion  of  the  office  and  duties  of  coroner, 
bearing  in  mind  the  remark  of  Littleton  "If  the  inquest  will 
take  upon  them  the  knowledge  of  the  law  they  may  give 
their  verdict  generally"  (c),  and  that  on  the  whole  the  im- 
mediate and  direct  right  of  deciding  upon  questions  of  law 
is  entrusted  to  the  court  while  the  jury  is  at  most  only  in- 
cidental (d)  and  also  remembering  that  if  the  coroner's 
jury  usurp  his  powers  and  take  upon  themselves  to  find 
the  law  and  the  facts,  there  is  no  method  whereby  to  punish 
them  if  their  finding  is  improper  (e).  The  writ  of  at- 
taint did  not  extend  to  criminal  cases  nor  to  inquests  of 
office  (/).  As  has  been  said  the  jury  could  be  fined  in  such 


(z)  Smith  Case,  Comberback,  383  (1697)  ;  Alderman's  Case,  2 
Levinz,  152  s.  c. ;  sub  nom  Rex  v.  Alderman,  i  Ventris,  278;  sub  nom 
Anonymous,  Freeman,  419-433. 

(ez)  Where  a  coroner  inserted  in  the  inquest  that  the  jury  found 
three  persons  guilty  of  murder,  where  they  in  fact  found  but  one,  he 
was  adjudged  to  have  committed  forgery,  indicted  and  found  guilty, 
Fleta,  Book  2,  cap.  25,  Sect.  3. 

(a)  King  v.  Stukeley,  12  Modern,  423   (1702). 

(6)  Per  Holt,  C.  J.,  Smith's  Case,  Comberback,  383  (1697). 

(c)  Coke  upon  Littleton,  228. 

(d)  Hargrave  &  Butler's  note,  ubi  supra. 
(*)  Jervis  on  Coroners,  256. 

(/)     Comyns'  Digest,  title  Attaint  B. 


104    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

a  case  (0),  but  it  would  seem  to  be  an  exercise  of  their 
judicial  office  for  which  they  would  not  be  accountable  (h}. 

The  relation  of  the  coroner's  jury  to  the  petit  jury 
is  most  interesting.  Gross  discusses  it  at  length  in  his  In- 
troduction to  Select  Coroner's  Rolls  he  says,  in  effect  (i). 

First,  it  is  to  be  noted  the  word  by  which  the  coroners' 
court  is  called  "hujuisitis"  which  is  a  generic  word  in  its 
origin,  referring  to  a  new  system  of  procedure  and  was 
therefore  applicable  to  all  juries  whether  judicial  or  admin- 
istrative. The  composition  of  the  coroner's  jury  in  the 
thirteenth  and  fourteenth  centuries  varied  somewhat  in 
different  localities  and  different  times.  Most  commonly  it 
consisted  wholly  or  in  part  of  a  representation  from  four 
neighboring  townships  (villatate}  namely  that  in  which 
the  body  was  found  or  the  death  occurred  and  the  three 
nearest  vills.  Sometimes  the  jury  was  taken  from  five  and 
less,  frequently,  from  three,  six  or  eight.  The  most  com- 
mon form  of  inquest- jury  mentioned  in  the  Selden  Rolls 
is  that  in  which  the  verdict  is  found  by  twelve  men  together 
with  four  neighboring  townships  or  tithings,  the  twelve 
men  probably  representing  the  whole  hundred.  The  four 
vills  and  the  twelve  men  seem  often  to  have  been  regarded 
as  two  distinct  bodies;  their  verdicts  seem  to  have  been 
given  separately.  Then  again,  each  vill  could  make  its  own 
statement  or  the  vills  could  find  a  verdict  collectively  and 
severally.  The  number  of  persons  from  each  villata  seems 
to  have  been  indeterminate;  it  was  regulated  by  no  definite 
rule  or  principle,  as  many  were  summoned  as  were  deemed 
sufficient  for  the  inquest.  In  most  of  the  cases  where  the 
number  is  stated,  each  township  sent  its  reeve  and  four 
men,  the  whole  jury  consisting  of  thirty-two  persons.  Many 
inquests  were,  however,  held  "per  XII  juratores"  etc. 
These  often  came  from  the  four  neighboring  vills. 

"The  inquest  was  sometimes  held  before  more  than 
one  coroner.  In  Cambridgeshire  the  bailiff  of  the  hundred 
summoned  the  jury  and  in  townships  the  freeholders  were 


(ff)  2  Hawkins'  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c.  22,  Sects.  21-22. 

(h)  Fortesque  de  laudibus  by  Amos  9,  Vaughn's  Reports,  198. 

(i)  Gross's  Introduction  to  Select  Coroners  Rolls,  XXX. 


CORONERS'  INQUESTS  IN  ENGLAND  105 

amerced  if  they  did  not  appear  before  the  coroner.  Town- 
ships were  often  amerced  at  the  eyre  for  refusing  to  come 
or  for  not  appearing  in  full. 

"These  details  throw  some  light  upon  the  relation  of 
the  four  townships  to  the  twelve  juratores  of  the  hundred 
who  at  the  eyre  presented  and  also  tried  persons  accused 
of  crime.  During  Henry  Ill's  reign  this  jury,  after  hav- 
ing presented  that  a  certain  person  is  suspected  of  crime, 
is  asked  to  say  in  so  many  words  whether  this  man  is 
guilty  or  no.  If  it  finds  him  guilty,  then  the  four  neigh- 
boring townships  are  sworn  and  answer  the  same  question. 
If  they  agree  with  the  :hundredors,  sentence  is  passed 
*  *  *  by  the  end  of  Henry  Ill's  reign  it  is  common  that 
the  question  of  guilt  or  innocence  should  be  submitted  to  the 
presenting  jury,  to  the  jury  of  another  hundred  and  to  the 
four  vills  *  *  *  the  practice  of  swearing  in  these  villagers 
seems  to  be  abandoned  (in  Edward  Fs  reign)  as  the  accused 
acquires  his  right  to  a  second  jury  of  free  and  lawful 
men.  The  importance  of  these  vills  as  an  element  in  the 
body  that  tried  the  accused  has  been  pointed  out  by  Pro- 
fessor Maitland  in  his  introduction  to  Pleas  of  Gloucester. 
He  rightly  remarks  that  the  history  of  the  petit  jury  is  still 
in  manuscript.  He  is  inclined  to  seek  its  germ  in  the 
quatuor  villatae;  their  representatives  become  a  second  body 
of  witnesses  who  could  traverse  the  testimony  of  the  hun- 
dred jury.  This  is  a  plausible  theory.  If  the  work  of  the 
neighboring  towns  at  the  eyre  was  not  the  germ  of  the 
petit  jury  it  was  at  least  a  stage  in  the  development  of 
procedure  which  future  historians  of  trial  by  jury  cannot 
safely  ignore  (&). 

"The  origin  of  the  traverse  or  trial  by  jury  was  prob- 
ably connected  with  a  specific  class  of  cases,  namely,  ap- 
peals of  felony,  before  and  after  the  abolition  of  the  or- 
deal (circum  1219)  for  which  the  petit  jury  was  substituted. 
The  appellee  was  often  tried  by  a  jury  instead  of  wager  of 
battle.  When  such  an  appeal  was  presented  by  the  jurors 
of  the  hundred,  the  neighboring  vills  were  sometimes  asked 


Pleas  of  Gloucester,  29;  2  Palgraves  Commonwealth,  185. 


106    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

for  their  testimony  and  on  that  testimony  the  accused  might 
be  declared  guilty  or  innocent.  In  these  appeals  and  in 
trials  resulting  from  ordinary  presentments  by  the  public 
voice,  the  four  townships  often  appear  to  be  regarded  as 
a  body  distinct  from  the  accusing  juratores,  a  body,  in  fact, 
which  virtually  decides  the  case  like  the  later  petit  jury. 

"The  neighboring  vills  were  sometimes  also  employed 
in  connection  with  the  presentment  jury  in  making  accusa- 
tions and  in  such  cases  much  weight  was  attached  to  their 
testimony.  The  villatae  were  probably  not  a  regular  part 
of  either  the  accusing  or  the  trial  jury,  but  were  called  upon 
in  certain  emergencies  to  add  their  knowledge  of  the  facts 
to  that  of  the  juratores,  seemingly  when  the  latter  were  in 
doubt  or  when  the  court  deemed  it  expedient  that  they 
should  be  aforced.  When  such  use  was  made  of  the  vills 
their  declaration  was  generally  accepted  by  the  court  as 
a  decisive  verdict.  The  number  of  persons  from  each  of 
the  four  townships  added  in  this  way  to  the  hundred  jury  is 
rarely  stated  in  the  printed  sources,  but  would  naturally  be 
the  reeve  and  four  men  who  usually  appear  at  eyre  to  repre- 
sent the  township. 

"This  activity  of  the  neighboring  villatae  in  criminal 
pleas  may  perhaps  be  largely  due  to  the  fact  that  the  town- 
ship has  already  in  most  cases  made  a  careful  investigation 
of  the  offence  in  connection  with  the  coroner's  inquest  and 
would  therefore  have  more  exact  knowledge  of  the  facts 
than  the  hundred  jury.  The  same  four  vills  that  made  the 
preliminary  inquiry  before  the  coroner  would  often  par- 
ticipate in  the  final  trial  before  the  justices.  The  jury  of 
twelve  men  of  the  hundred  also  had  its  counterpart  in  many 
coroner's  inquests.  In  these  inquests  as  in  the  eyre  the 
twelve  jurors  brought  in  their  verdict  either  by  themselves 
or  in  conjunction  with  the  four  vills. 

"There  is  another  way  in  which  the  coroner's  inquest 
may  have  influenced  the  growth  of  trial  by  jury.  At  some 
of  the  inquests,  evidence  by  persons  not  in  the  jury  was 
taken  (/).  The  facts  so  ascertained  were  entered  in  the 


(/)  This  was  certainly  done  in  1270,  Select  Coroners  Rolls,  25,  in 
1271  Select  Coroners  Rolls,  16. 


CORONERS'  INQUESTS  IN  ENGLAND  107 

rotuli  coronatoris  for  use  before  the  itinerant  justices.  The 
evidence  produced  at  the  inquest  would  also  be  generally 
known  to  the  representatives  of  the  townships  and  when 
they  acted  in  conjunction  with  the  trial  jury,  would  have 
weight  in  the  final  proceedings  at  eyre.  Thus,  in  the  cor- 
oner's jury  there  seems  to  have  been,  at  least  in  some  cases, 
a  nearer  approach  to  the  determination  of  truth  from  the 
evidence  of  witnesses  than  in  the  early  petit  jury  whose 
verdict  was  based  on  previous  knowledge  of  the  facts.  The 
coroner's  jury  may  indeed  be  regarded  as  one  of  the  links 
uniting  the  old  system  of  procedure  to  the  modern  practice 
of  deciding  matters  upon  the  evidence  of  witnesses  openly 
examined  in  court." 

Sect.  53.  The  jury  having  qualified  and  the  view  had 
the  other  evidence  was  then  in  order.  The  body,  as  has 
been  seen,  was  a  large  part  of  the  evidence,  the  marks  or 
wounds  upon  the  body  were  carefully  observed  by  the 
jury  (w),  and  their  length,  breadth  and  depth,  carefully 
noted  (n).  All  the  evidence  had  to  be  on  oath  (0).  A  peer 
might,  at  his  election,  affirm  on  his  honor,  and  if  he  did, 
there  was  no  remedy  (/>),  but  he  could  not  then  be  compe- 
tent as  a  witness.  To  qualify  he  must  be  sworn  (#),  but 

he  could  not  be  compelled  to  be  sworn  (r). 

It  seems  to  have  been  the  duty  of  the  coroner  to  in- 
quire impartially  and  fairly  without  prejudice  or  favor 
to  any  one  or  any  view  of  the  case.  It  was  his  duty  to  hear 
all  the  evidence  that  was  offered  to  him  (s).  As  Hale 
quaintly  says,  "in  cases  where  the  inquest  is  conclusive,  the 
coroner  must  hear  the  evidence  both  for  and  against  king, 
for  there  is  no  man  to  be  condemned  to  death,  but  only  a 


(m)  Britton,  c  I,  Sect.  7. 

(n)  4  Edward  I,  i  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  40. 

(0)  Umfreville  Lex  Coronatoris,  187;  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown, 
61-157;  King  v.  Scorey,  I  Leach,  43  (1749),  a  Jew  should  be  sworn  on 
the  Old  Testament,  Strange,  113,  a  Moor  on  the  Koran,  Strange,  1104. 

(/>)  Fort.  Rep.,  394-395,  vide  3  Keb.  63;  Umfreville  Lex  Corona- 
toris, 188. 

(g)  Umfreville's  Lex  Coronatoris,  188. 

(r)  Freeman's  Reports,  422-423. 

(s~)  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  157;  King  v.  Scorey,  i  Leach, 
43  (1749)- 


108    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

fact  to  be  inquired  into"  (f).  In  the  case  of  King  v. 
Scorey  (u)  where  a  man  had  been  killed  in  a  nobleman's 
forest  by  the  defendant,  one  of  the  underkeepers,  the  coroner 
refused  to  receive  the  evidence  of  the  underkeeper  who  was 
with  Scorey  to  the  effect  that  they  had  authority  as  keepers 
of  the  forest.  The  coroner  told  the  jury  that  they  must  find 
it  murder,  but  they  refused  so  to  find  and  returned  a  verdict 
of  accidental  death,  which  the  coroner  recorded  and  then 
sent  Scorey  to  jail  for  murder.  The  court  admitted  Scorey 
to  bail  and  granted  a  rule  on  the  coroner  to  show  cause 
why  an  information  should  not  be  granted  against  him. 
In  Ripley's  case  (v}  it  was  alleged  that  the  coroner  refused 
proof  that  the  deceased  was  non  compos  mentis  and  the  jury 
returned  a  verdict  of  felo  de  se  (w).  The  court  told  the 
administratrix  to  take  the  inquest  into  the  King's  Bench 
and  traverse  it  (x).  In  King  v.  Stukley  (3;)  a  man  made 
his  will  just  before  he  died.  The  other  circumstances  of 
the  case  were  suspicious.  The  evidence  was  very  strong  that 
hekilled  himself,  so  thecoroner  took  some  of  the  jurymen  off 
the  jury,  who  then  returned  a  verdict  of  non  compos  mentis. 
On  these  facts  appearing  the  return  was  quashed  and  Holt, 
C.  J.,  said  the  jurymen  could  not  be  amoved  after  the  jury 
was  sworn  (z).  In  Berkley's  case  (a)  where  the  coroner 
refused  to  hear  evidence  that  the  person  felo  de  se  was  in 
fact  non  compos  mentis,  he  was  repremanded  by  the  King's 
Bench  and  the  inquisition  was  quashed.  Hale  says,  (&)' 
"but  where  it  is  known  that  one  killed  another  the  only  evi- 


(f)  2  Male's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  60;  Umfreville's  Lex  Corona- 
toris,  204.  The  inference  seems  to  be  that  if  there  was  a  man  to  be 
condemned  to  death  it  would  be  no  part  of  the  judges  duty  to  hear 
evidence  against  the  Crown. 

(«)  I  Leach,  43  (1749),  and  see  Jervis  on  Coroners,  284. 

(v)  2  Jones,  198;  2  Shower,  199;  Skinner,  45. 

(w)  By  so  doing  the  King  got  his  forfeiture.  It  was  not  re- 
corded how  much  thereby  accrued  to  the  coroner. 

(x)  See  Alderman's  Case,  2  Levinz,  152  s.  c.  sub  nom  Rex  v. 
Alderman,  i  Ventris,  278,  sub  non  Anonymous,  Freeman,  419-433. 

(y)  12  Modern,  423  (1702). 

(*)  Croke's  Elizabeth,  371 ;  Carthew,  72 ;  i  Ventris,  181 ;  I  Salkeld, 
190;  3  Modern,  80-100-238;  i  Strange,  69. 

(o)  2  Siderfen,  90-101-144  (1658),  and  see  2  Kale's  Pleas  of  the 
Crown,  60. 

(b)  2  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  60. 


CORONERS'  INQUESTS  IN  ENGLAND  109 

dence  to  be  heard  is  that  for  the  king  and  the  jury  must 
bring  it  in  murder  even  though  it  be  an  officer  in  the 
execution  of  his  duty,  for  the  defence  will  be  made  before 
the  petit  jury  where  the  verdict  will  correct  that  of  the 
coroners  and  thus  it  hath  been  commonly  practiced  in  later 
years"  (c).  Yet  he  adds  and  we  cannot  but  agree  with  him, 
"but  it  seemeth  to  me  to  be  neither  reasonable  nor  agree- 
able to  law  or  ancient  usage.  It  may  do  indeed  for  the 
grand  jury  but  not  for  the  coroners,  for  these  reasons: 
because  the  coroner's  inquest  is  to  inquire  truly  (rf)  and  is 
rather  for  the  information  of  the  truth  of  the  fact  as  near 
as  the  jury  can  assert  it  and  not  for  accusation;  2,  because 
though  the  prisoner  may  be  arraigned  upon  the  coroner's 
inquest,  if  it  find  it  murder  or  manslaughter  (e),  yet 
neither  the  court  nor  the  prosecutor  is  concluded  by  it, 
but  the  bill  of  murder  may  be  preferred  to  the  grand  in- 
quest and  upon  that  new  presentment,  the  party  may  be 
arraigned  and  tried  though  the  coroner's  inquest  arises 
only  to  manslaughter  or  it  may  be  to  se  defendo  or  chance 
medley;  3.  and  accordingly  the  ancient  practice  hath  been 
for  the  coroner's  inquest  to  find  the  matter  as  they  judge 
it  was  (/).  Therefore,  there  is  a  difference  in  the  statute 
of  i  and  2  Phillip  and  Mary,  chapter  13  (g}  between  the 
provisions  as  to  justices  and  as  to  coroners;  the  justices  are 
directed  to  put  down  so  much  of  the  evidence  as  is  material 
'to  prove  felonies'  while  those  words  are  omitted  as  to 
coroners." 


(c)  But  it  was  for  doing  just  this  that  the  rule  to  show  cause  was 
granted  in  King  v.  Scorey,  supra. 

(d)  Why  should  not  this  hold  as  to  indictments  before  the  grand 
jury;  they  are  to  inquire  truly.    See  Rex  v.  Dalton,  2  Strange,  911 
(1722)  ;  Rex  v.  Magrath,  2  Strange,  1242  (1746)  ;  2  Burn's  Justices,  43 
(Edition  of  1845)-    The  inquisition  of  felony  ought  to  be  as  certain 
as  indictments,  Rex  v.  Clerk,  Holt,  167,  nothing  shall  be  taken  by  in- 
tendment  in  them,  i  Saunder's  Reports,  356. 

(e)  The  practice  now  is  and  long  has  been  to  take  the  indictment 
before  the  grand  jury.    These  parallel  proceedings  seem  at  first  blush 
a  needless  waste  of  time  and  money,  but  on  second  consideration  it 
will  be  seen  the  purposes  of  the  two  inquisitions  are  totally  different. 

(/)  Crompton's  Justices,  f  58 ;  Holme's  Case,  26  Elizabeth ;  Coke's 
Entries,  353b,  and  very  often  in  the  ancient  iters  of  Edward  II,  and 
Edward  III;  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  61. 

(0)  (i554)»  4  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  part  2,  p.  250.  See  2  Hale'i 
Pleas  of  the  Crown,  6r. 


110    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

In  his  note  to  Blackstone's  remarks  on  this  subject 
the  late  Chief  Justice  Coleridge  says:  "It  seems  probable 
that  in  ancient  times  the  whole  inquisition  was  taken  with 
the  body  lying  before  the  coroner  and  jury,  or  at  least  that 
the  body  was  not  buried  till  the  inquisition  was  concluded. 
Now,  however,  it  is  sufficient  if  the  coroner  and  jury  have 
together  a  view  of  the  body  (such  a  view  as  enables 
them  to  ascertain  whether  there  are  any  marks  of  violence 
on  it  or  any  appearance  explanatory  of  the  cause  of  death) 
and  the  latter  are  then  sworn  by  the  former  in  the  presence 
of  the  body.  These  two,  however,  are  indispensable  condi- 
tions to  the  proceeding  by  the  coroner  (A)." 

The  statute  of  I  &  2  Phillip  and  Mary,  Chapter  13 
(t)  provides,  "every  coroner  upon  any  inquisition  before 
him  found  whereby  any  person  or  persons  shall  be  indicted 
for  murder  or  manslaughter,  or  as  accessory  or  accessories 
to  the  same  before  the  murder  or  manslaughter  committed 
shall  put  in  writing  the  effect  of  the  evidence  given  to  the 
jury  before  him,  being  material"  and  shall  bind  over  the 
witnesses  to  the  next  gaol  delivery  and  return  the  examina- 
tion and  recognizances  with  the  inquisition  on  pain  of 
being  fined  by  the  judge  (fc). 

There  is  no  requirement  that  the  evidence  shall  be  taken 
down,  but  the  coroner  shall  take  down  the  "effect  of  the 
evidence."  According  to  East  (/)  the  statute  does  not 
authorize  him  to  take  down  the  impression  which  the  evi- 
dence made  upon  his  mind,  but  the  meaning  of  the  witnesses. 
He  need  not,  however,  follow  their  exact  words  unless 
that  is  important  (m). 

It  has  been  doubted  whether  the  parties  interested  in 
the  inquiry  are  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  counsel  before  the 
cononer's  inquest.  In  one  case  of  felo  de  se  the  court  of 
King's  Bench  quashed  the  inquisition  because  the  coroner 
refused  to  admit  counsel  and  witnesses  on  behalf  of  the 


(/»)  Regina  v.  Ferrand,  3  B  &  A,  260. 

(*')   (1554),  4  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  part  2,  p.  250. 

(*)  40   shillings,   2   Kale's    Pleas   of   the    Crown,   64;   6   Viner's 
Abridgment,  246. 

(/)  i  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  384. 

(m)  Jervis  on  the  Law  of  Coroners,  45. 


CORONERS'  INQUESTS  IN  ENGLAND  111 

administratrix  (»').  There  is,  however,  no  decision  ap- 
plicable to  other  inquiries  before  the  coroner  and  the  case 
alluded  to  proceeded  upon  the  supposition  that  inquisitions 
of  felo  de  se  were  not  traversable,  whereas  it  may  be 
supported  more  properly  upon  another  ground  without 
reference  to  the  admissibility  of  counsel,  viz. :  the  rejection 
of  evidence.  It  was  admitted  in  the  argument  of  the  case  of 
Cox  v.  Coleridge  (&),  that  a  party  has  the  right  to  attend 
by  counsel  before  the  coroner's  inquest.  The  point  was  not, 
however,  noticed  in  the  judgment  of  the  court,  but  Mr. 
Justice  Bayley  observed  incidentally  that  the  right  de- 
pended upon  the  question  whether  or  no  the  inquest  were 
traversable.  But  with  great  deference  to  so  high  an  au- 
thority it  would  seem  that  the  right  can  in  no  case  de- 
pend on  this  criterion.  The  nature  of  the  finding  can- 
not be  ascertained  until  all  the  witnesses  are  examined 
and  the  verdict  returned,  at  which  period  it  would  be  fruit- 
less to  allow  or  disallow  the  attendance  of  counsel. 

"If  this  be  correct  the  question  of  abstract  right  must 
be  considered  without  reference  to  direct  authority  and 
it  would  seem  in  principle  to  be  at  most  but  doubtful. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  position  of  counsel  to  except  them 
from  the  power  of  exclusion  vested  in  the  coroner  and  if 
they  are  allowed  there  is  no  reason  why  any  other  advocate 
skilled  in  the  law  should  not  be  permitted  to  be  present 
at  the  coroner's  proceedings.  If  any  advocate  has  the 
right  to  be  present  a  fortiori  the  party  suspected  ( for  there 
can  be  no  accusation  until  the  inquiry  is  terminated)  may 
be  present  also  and  undoubtedly  the  coroner  may,  if  he 
thinks  fit,  exclude  even  the  persons  suspected.  If  the 
party  suspected  or  interested  has  a  right  to  the  assist- 
ance of  counsel  it  is  impossible  to  say  that  those  in  the 
opposite  interest  have  not  the  equal  right  to  have  the 
presence  and  assistance  of  some  legal  adviser  on  their 
behalf,  and  if  one  may  attend,  why  not  several.  If  an 
advocate  has  a  right  to  be  present  he  may  obtain  such  in- 
formation as  may  tend  to  frustrate  the  administration 


(»)  Berkley's  Case,  2  Sid.,  go,  101. 
(*)  I  B.  &  C.  37,  2  D.  &  R.  86. 


112    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

of  justice  by  knowing  who  the  persons  are  who  are  likely 
to  be  accused  and  the  evidence  by  which  the  accusation  may 
be  supported.  The  profession  at  the  present  day  is  too 
liberal,  honorable  and  intelligent  to  furnish  ground  for  ob- 
jection on  this  score,  but  the  bare  possibility  is  sufficient 
to  determine  the  question  abstract  right"  (n).  It  is  here 
worth  while  to  note  that  in  England,  at  that  time  certainly, 
a  prisoner  had  no  right  to  counsel  before  the  magistrate 
and  none  before  the  coroner. 

"It  by  no  means  follows  as  a  consequence  that  their 
admission  on  some  occasions  would  confer  a  right  to  be 
present  at  all"  (0). 

"If  it  be  not  left  to  the  fair  discretion  of  the  coroner 
whether  he  will  or  will  not  admit  counsel  that  privacy  which 
is  due,  not  only  to  the  ends  of  justice,  where  the  inquiry 
may  terminate  in  accusation,  but  also  in  many  cases  to  the 
feelings  of  the  family  of  the  deceased  cannot  be  main- 
tained. This  exclusion  may  in  some  cases  operate  as  a 
temporary  grievance,  but  it  is  obviously  a  greater  that  the 
party  suspected  should  be  excluded,  yet  that  may  be  done 
if  the  coroner  think  proper,  and  it  is  better  that  there  should 
be  some  hardship  suffered  in  the  individual  case  than  that 
the  public  should  sustain  a  greater  detriment. 

"On  the  other  hand  it  is  obvious  that  there  are  many 
cases  in  which  it  may  be  expedient  for  the  coroner  to  ad- 
mit the  presence  of  persons  learned  in  the  law.  Wherever 
questions  of  doubt  of  difficulty  may  present  themselves 
in  the  course  of  the  inquiry,  it  is  fitting  that  both  the 
court  and  jury  should  have  the  benefit  of  the  attendance 
of  counsel,  although  coroners  are  in  all  cases  presumed 
to  be  qualified  to  discharge  their  duties,  should  such  cases 
occur.  *  *  *  In  fine,  the  power  of  exclusion,  even  of  the 
public  generally,  ought  to  be  regulated  by  a  due  regard 
to  the  circumstances  of  each  particular  case  and  should, 
in  no  instance,  be  arbitrarily  or  improperly  enforced"  (/>). 


(n)  Jervis  on  the  Law  of  Coroners,  266. 
(o)  Jervis,  269. 
(p)  Jervis,  267. 


CORONERS'  INQUESTS  IN  ENGLAND  113 

Sect.  54.  "It  has  been  the  subject  of  much  contro- 
versy whether  the  inquiry  before  the  coroner  is  of  a  public 
nature,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  cause  of  death 
merely  and  such  as  takes  place  in  the  ordinary  courts  of 
justice  or  on  an  inquest  of  office  or  whether  it  is  merely 
an  ex  parte  and  secret  proceeding  analogous  to  that  before 
grand  juries  and  magistrates  for  the  purpose  of  accusation 
which  is  admitted  to  be  private  (q). 

"In  support  of  the  publicity  of  the  proceedings  it  is 
urged  first  that  the  duties  of  the  coroner  and  the  obligations 
of  the  public  towards  him,  show  that  the  inquiry  is  public; 
secondly,  that  the  individuals  have  interests  with  reference 
to  the  inquest  which  can  only  be  exercised  by  a  right  of  ac- 
cess, and  lastly  the  dictci  of  learned  judges  are  adduced  to 
show  that  the  proceedings  should  be  open  and  public  (r). 

"In  support  of  the  first  proposition  it  is  contended  that 
the  inquiry  before  the  coroner  does  not  necessarily  lead  to 
accusation  and  that  the  probability  of  its  so  terminating 
is  not  a  ground  sufficient  for  saying  that  it  should  be  secret. 

"The  statute  of  Marlbridge,  Chapter  24  (s)  is  also 
cited  as  a  legislative  declaration  that  all  persons  of  the 
age  of  twelve  years  ought  to  be  present  at  an  inquest  for 
the  death  of  a  man.  The  former  part  of  that  chapter 
remedies  the  grievance  before  felt  from  amercements  im- 
posed upon  townships  because  all  persons  of  the  age  of 
twelve  years  did  not  attend  the  coroners  inquest  upon  all 
occasions  and  provides  that  there  shall  be  no  amercement 
if  a  sufficient  number  of  those  summoned  come  to  take  the 
inquest,  but  it  excepts  expressly  from  that  provision  in- 
quests for  the  death  of  a  man,  and  therefore  it  is  contended 
in  those  cases,  all  are  bound  to  attend.  How  otherwise,  it  is 
said,  can  the  inquiry  be  conducted  with  effect ;  for  the  coroner 
goes  on  the  spot,  where  the  inquiry  is  to  be  instituted  know- 
ing nothing  of  the  occurrence  or  who  may  or  who  may  not 


(q\  Cox  v.  Coleridge,  2  D.  &  R.  86,  I  B.  &  C.  37.  This  whole 
section  is  quoted  from  Jervis  on  Coroners  whose  discussion  of  the  mat- 
ter is  too  able  to  be  improved  upon. 

(r)  Britton,  c.  I,  Sect.  7,  says  the  coroner  shall  not  omit  to  cause 
the  body  to  be  openly  viewed  and  by  the  inquest. 

(s)  I  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  25  (1267). 


114    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

be  able  to  testify  to  the  circumstances  of  it.  Sir  T.  Smith 
in  his  history  of  the  Commonwealth  (f)  observes  that  'the 
empanneling  of  the  coroner's  inquest  and  the  view  of  the 
body  is  commonly  in  the  street  in  an  open  place  and  in 
corona  populi'  and  in  an  anonymous  case  («)  in  which  the 
court  held  that  an  inquisition  of  felo  de  se  was  traversable, 
Lord  Hale  distinguished  it  from  a  fugum  fecit  by  observing 
that  'all  the  parties  that  were  present  at  the  death  of  the 
party  are  bound  to  attend  the  coroners  inquest  and  upon  their 
not  appearing  there  is  a  flying  in  law  which  cannot  be  con- 
tradicted'. 

"With  reference  to  the  second  proposition  it  being  ad- 
mitted that  the  coroner  must  hear  the  evidence  as  well  for  as 
against  the  interest  of  the  crown,  how,  it  is  said,  can.  one 
who  is  not  present  tell  what  evidence  is  given  to  criminate 
him  so  as  to  be  enabled  to  advance  evidence  in  answer. 
Again  a  subject  has  a  right  to  move  to  set  aside  an  in- 
quisition for  irregularity ;  but  of  that  he  can  have  no  knowl- 
edge unless  he  be  present  (v}.  The  coroner's  inquest  par- 
takes of  the  nature  of  other  offices  of  entitling  (w)  at 
which  the  public  have  a  right  to  be  present,  that  right  being 
secured  by  the  statutes  of  escheators  (;r),  which  it  is  said 
are  but  declaratory  of  the  common  law.  Although  to  a 
certain  extent  traversable,  that  does  not  preclude  the  right, 
for  although  an  inquisition  to  find  debts  is  also  traversable 
a  party  interested  has  a  right  to  be  present  and  to  cross- 
examine  the  witnesses  (y),  for  irreparable  injury  may  be 
done  even  though  ultimately  the  inquisition  may  be  tra- 
versed. It  is  not  similar  to  proceedings  before  a  magistrate 
or  grand  jury.  There  in  the  first  instance  a  particular  in- 
dividual is  accused;  before  the  coroner  there  is  no  accusa- 
tion, but  the  inquiry  is  to  ascertain  how  the  party  came  to 

(I)  See  Jervis  on  Coroners,  p.  96. 

(«)  Freeman's  Reports,  419;  see  Rex  v.  Aldenham,  2  Levinz,  152 
s.  c.,  sub  non,  Rex  v.  Alderman,  i  Ventris,  278. 

(v)  3  Modern,  80. 

(«/)  Rex  v.  Killinghall,  I  Burroughs,  17,  where  the  inquest  was 
quashed  because  it  was  not  "publicly  and  openly  found."  See  Ham- 
mond v.  Howell,  i  Modern,  814. 

(JT)  34  Edward  HI,  c.  13 ;  36  Henry  VI,  c.  16 ;  i  Henry  VIII,  c.  8. 

(y)  3  Price,  454. 


CORONERS'  INQUESTS  IN  ENGLAND  115 

his  death.  Grand  Jurors  are  sworn  to  secrecy,  by  the  oath 
of  the  coroners  jury  no  such  term  is  imposed.  Depositions 
before  grand  juries  are  not  evidence,  those  before  the  coroner 
are  (#),  which  must  be,  because  the  party  suspected  or 
ultimately  accused  has  the  right  to  be  present  to  cross- 
examine  the  witnesses. 

"Thirdly,  the  dicta  of  modern  judges  are  adduced  to 
show  that  the  proceedings  are  public.  Mr.  Justice  Black- 
stone  (a),  speaking  of  a  presentment  of  fugam  fecit  says, 
the  reason  given  in  some  books  why  this  inquest  is  not 
traversable  like  other  inquests  of  office  is  because  of  the 
notoriety  of  the  coroner's  inquest  super  visum  corporis, 
at  which  the  inhabitants  of  all  the  neighboring  villages  are 
bound  to  attend  and  so  the  finding  of  flight  is  in  effect  re- 
cording the  absence  of  the  party,  Lord  Mansfield  (6), 
likens  it  to  other  inquests  of  office  which  are  open  by  ex- 
press statutes,  and  Lord  Kenyon  (c)  expressly  says  that 
the  examination  before  the  coroner  is  a  transaction  of 
notoriety  to  which  every  one  has  a  right  of  access. 

"However  strong  these  authorities  and  arguments  may 
at  first  sight  appear,  they  do  not  upon  examination  establish 
a  universal  right  for  all  the  public  to  be  present;  but  at 
most  extend  only  to  such  as  are  summoned,  suspected,  in- 
terested in  the  result  of  the  inquiry,  or  are  inhabitants  of 
the  vill  where  the  body  is  found  dead. 

"According  to  the  best  opinions,  the  coroner's  inquisi- 
tion is  in  no  case  conclusive  and  the  inquiry  is  therefore 
preliminary  only.  It  appears  from  the  commentary  of 
Lord  Coke  (</)  upon  the  statute  of  Marlbridge  that  the 
occasion  of  that  statute  was  the  custom  of  coroners  to  sum- 
mon many  townships  and  sometimes  a  whole  hundred  where 
twelve  persons  should  serve  to  make  the  inquiry,  and  if  all 
did  not  attend,  to  present  them  before  the  justices  in  eyre 
when  the  whole  township  or  hundred  were  amerced  even 


(*)  Phil.  &  Am  Ev.,  90;  Kel.  55;  Jon.  53;  i  Levinz,  180;  Gilbert 
on  Evidence,  124. 

(a)  2  William  Blackstone,  981. 

(fr)  Rex  v.  Killinghall,  i  Burroughs,  17. 

(c)  3  Term  Reports,  722. 

(d)  2  Coke's  Institutes,  147. 


116    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

though  a  sufficient  number  to  make  the  inquiry  did  appear. 
It  is  true  that  inquests  of  death  are  excepted  from  this  pro- 
vision, but  it  would  seem  from  the  commentary  that  none 
were  bound  to  appear  even  in  these  cases,  but  such  as  were 
summoned;  and  at  most  it  can  confer  no  right  upon  those 
who  are  not  inhabitants  of  the  vill.  The  ancient  practice 
as  stated  by  Sir  T.  Smith  cannot  decide  the  right;  and  t^e 
distinction  taken  by  Lord  Hole  with  reference  to  a  fugam 
fecit  may  be  correct  even  though  the  parties  at  the  death 
may  have  no  right  personally  to  be  present  during  the 
inquiry  of  the  coroner,  for  they  may  be  bound  to  attend 
to  give  evidence  if  called  upon  or  to  abide  the  result  of  the 
inquiry  and  yet  not  be  entitled  to  be  actually  present  in 
the  room;  notwithstanding  the  coroner,  the  presiding  of- 
ficer, may,  in  his  discretion,  direct  their  removal  (*). 

"It  is  clear  that  the  coroner  is  bound  to  hear  the  evi- 
dence on  both  sides  (/).  This,  it  is  presumed,  is  not  to 
protect  the  interests  of  those  who  may  be  suspected  or 
ultimately  accused,  but  because  the  inquiry  how  the  party 
came  to  his  death  cannot  be  truly  satisfied  unless  all  the 
witnesses  who  know  anything  of  the  death  be  examined. 
This  will  not  confer  the  right  of  access  on  witnesses  gener- 
ally, contrary  to  the  direction  of  the  coroner,  for  it  is  the 
constant  practice  in  the  courts  of  justice,  both  in  civil  and 
criminal  proceedings,  to  order  the  witnesses  to  leave  the 
court  and  to  examine  each  out  of  the  hearing  of  the  others, 
a  mode  best  calculated  to  insure  the  truth.  But  how  it  is 
said  can  the  depositions  taken  before  the  coroner  be  evidence 


(e)  It  was  undoubtedly  a  misdemeanor  to  obstruct  the  coroner, 
Rex  v.  Solgard,  2  Strange,  1097,  s.  c.,  Andrews,  231  (1738).  See 
Owens,  122 ;  Bracton,  f  121 ;  Fleta  Lib.  i  c,  25,  and  12  Jac.  i  B.  R.  Calth. 
Rep.  MS.  cited  Umfreville's  Lex  Coronatons,  217,  and  see  Jervis  on 
Coroners,  271  Lord  Tenterden's  dictum  in  Garnett  -v.  Ferrand,  6  Barn 
&  Cress,  611  and  6  Dowl  &  Ry.  657  (1826)  is  perhaps  the  most  concise 
statement  of  the  real  situation,  he  says  "it  will  be  in  many  cases  im- 
possible that  a  proceeding  should  be  conducted  with  due  order  and 
solemnity  and  with  the  effect  that  justice  demands,  if  the  presiding  offi- 
cer, whether  he  be  judge,  coroner,  justice  or  sheriff,  has  not  control 
of  the  proceedings  and  the  power  of  admission  or  exclusion  according 
to  his  own  discretion.  The  power  of  exclusion  is  necessary  to  the  due 
administration  of  justice."  See  also  article,  II  Western  Law  Journal, 
385. 

(/)  Rex  v.  Scorey,  i  Leach,  43  (1749)  ;  Regina  v.  Colmer,  o  Cox. 
C.  C.,  506. 


CORONERS'  INQUESTS  IN  ENGLAND  117 

unless  the  party  against  whom  they  are  used  be  present  and 
have  the  opportunity  of  cross-examining  the  witnesses.  It 
must  be  admitted  that  ordinarily  where  there  is  no  cross-ex- 
amination, depositions  are  not  admissible,  but  those  taken 
before  the  coroner  are,  it  is  conceived  an  exception  to  this 
general  rule.  The  coroner  is  an  elective  officer  appointed 
on  behalf  of  the  public  to  make  inquiry  about  the  matter 
within  his  jurisdiction  and  therefore  the  law  presumes  that 
the  depositions  made  before  him  will  be  fairly  and  impar- 
tially taken  (#).  In  the  case  of  Rex  v.  Eriswell  (&)  it  was 
argued  by  Mr.  Justice  Buller  that  the  examination  of  the 
pauper  was  admissible,  and  in  answer  to  the  objection  that 
it  was  taken  in  the  absence  of  the  parties  to  be  affected  by 
it,  he  instanced  the  case  of  depositions  taken  before  a  coroner 
which  were  always  evidence  though  the  party  was  not 
present.  There  is,  however,  no  reported  case  in  which  this 
point  has  been  directly  determined;  the  cases  alluded  to  by 
Mr.  Justice  Buller  (i),  certainly  do  not  support  it.  The 
practice  has  nevertheless  been  to  admit  such  depositions 
without  inquiring  whether  the  party  was  or  was  not  pres- 
ent, and  not  withstanding  the  objection  of  counsel,  they 
were  received  by  Mr.  Baron  Hotham  in  the  case  of  Rex 
v.  Purefoy  (&).  It  is  true  that  the  propriety  of  this  dis- 
tinction has  been  doubted  by  a  very  learned  author  who 
observes  that  there  appears  to  be  no  satisfactory  reason  why 
a  deposition  should  be  received  at  the  trial  under  circum- 
stances which  would  render  every  other  kind  of  judicial 
depositions  inadmissible  (/),  it  should,  however,  be  ob- 
served as  confirmatory  of  high  credit  which  the  law  attaches 
to  proceedings  before  the  coroner  that  even  before  the  late 
act  (m)  which  directs  the  coroner  to  subscribe  the  deposi- 
tions they  were  not  evidence  unless  they  were  signed  by  the 
coroner  (w). 

(g)  Buller's  Nisi  Prius,  238. 
(/»)  3  Term  Reports,  713. 
(»)  i  Levinz,  180;  Kelyng,  55;  Salkeld,  555. 

(k)  Maidstone  Summer  Assize,  1794;  see  Peake  on  Evidence,  64; 
2  Phil.  &  Arn.  on  Evidence,  91. 

(/)  2  Phil.  &  Arn.  on  Evidence,  no. 
(m)  7  George  IV,  c  64,  Sect.  4. 
(n)  2  Leach,  C.  L.,  770. 


118    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

"There  is,  however,  another  argument  adduced  to  show 
that  the  proceedings  are  public;  for  how  it  is  said  can  ir- 
regularity be  taken  advantage  of  unless  the  party  have 
a  right  to  be  present?  It  must  be  admitted  that  there  are 
instances  in  which  from  the  gross  misconduct  of  the  cor- 
oner or  of  the  jury,  inquisitions  have  been  quashed,  but 
there  are  none  in  which  this  course  has  been  produced  for 
a  mere  irregularity.  The  coroner  is  a  public  elective  officer, 
sworn  to  discharge  his  duty  faithfully;  the  jurors  are  also 
sworn  to  the  just  execution  of  their  office  and  are  not  bound 
to  secrecy,  each  is  a  mutual  check  upon  the  other,  and  it  is 
almost  impossible  that  gross  misconduct  should  exist,  with- 
out the  means  of  bringing  it  before  the  court.  But  should 
such  a  case  occur  without  the  possibility  of  disclosure,  it 
must  be  remembered  that  the  inquiry  is  but  preliminary 
and  may  be  traversed;  and  the  temporary  interests  of  the 
private  individuals  must  yield  to  the  public  good,  if  it  be 
necessary  for  the  ends  of  justice  that  the  inquiry  should  be 
conducted  in  secrecy.  Other  inquests  of  office  are  undoubt- 
edly open  to  the  public  and  the  parties  interested  have  a 
right  to  cross-examine  the  witnesses,  but  such  do  not  end  in 
the  possible  accusation  of  any  individual.  There  are  indeed 
many  inquiries  before  the  coroner  which  ultimately  do  not 
affect  the  distinction ;  but  that  cannot  legitimately  be  ascer- 
tained until  the  inquiry  has  terminated,  at  which  period  it  is 
too  late  to  allow  or  disallow  the  presence  of  the  public. 

"The  statutes  of  escheators  which  were  made  in  con- 
sequence of  the  misconduct  of  those  officers  and  required 
in  future  their  inquests  should  be  taken  publicly,  do  not 
in  any  degree  affect  the  inquests  of  coroners.  When  Lord 
Mansfield  spoke  of  express  statutes,  he  probably  alluded 
to  these,  for  there  are  some  applicable  to  coroners,  and  Lord 
Kenyon's  dictum  may  be  referred  to  the  same  source,  viz. :  a 
confounding  of  the  statutory  provisions  relating  to  these 
inquests  of  office  with  coroners'  inquisitions. 

"It  is  obvious  although  the  inquiry  of  the  coroner  is 
preliminary  only,  that  it  may  and  frequently  does  lead  to 
an  accusation.  Such  an  inquiry  ought,  for  the  purposes  of 
justice  in  some  cases,  to  be  conducted  in  secrecy.  It  may 


CORONERS'  INQUESTS  IN  ENGLAND  119 

be  requisite  that  the  party  suspected  should  not  in  so  early 
a  stage  be  informed  of  the  suspicion  that  may  be  enter- 
tained against  him  and  of  the  evidence  upon  which  that 
suspicion  is  founded,  lest  he  should  elude  justice  by  flight, 
by  tampering  with  the  witnesses  or  by  any  other  means. 
Accusation  may  begin  at  the  moment  when  the  evidence 
commences.  Cases  may  also  occur  in  which  privacy  may 
be  requisite  for  the  sake  of  decency,  others  in  which  it  may 
be  due  to  the  family  of  the  deceased.  Many  things  may 
be  disclosed  to  those  who  are  to  decide,  the  publication  of 
which  to  the  world  at  large  would  be  productive  of  mis- 
chief, without  any  possibility  of  good.  Even  in  cases  in 
which  absolute  privacy  may  not  be  required,  the  exclusion 
of  particular  persons  may  be  necessary  and  proper.  Of  the 
necessity  of  this  privacy  or  exclusion  the  coroner  is  the 
judge.  It  is  a  power  necessary  to  the  due  administration 
of  justice,  and  it  is  impossible  that  the  proceedings  should 
be  conducted  with  due  order  and  solemnity  and  with  the 
effect  that  justice  demands  if  the  presiding  officer  have 
not  the  control  of  the  proceedings  and  the  power  of  admis- 
sion or  exclusion  according  to  his  own  discretion. 

"For  the  fair  and  bona  fide  exercise  of  this  discretion, 
no  action  can  be  maintained  against  the  coroner  (0).  The 
court  of  the  coroner  is  a  court  of  record  of  which  the  coroner 
is  judge,  and  it  is  a  general  rule,  of  great  antiquity,  that 
no  action  will  lie  against  a  judge  of  record  for  any  matter 
done  by  him  in  the  exercise  of  his  judicial  functions  (/>). 
This  amenity  from  actions  or  questions  at  the  suit  of  an  in- 
dividual, is  given  by  the  law  to  the  judges  not  so  much  for 
the  sake  of  the  judges  as  for  that  of  the  public,  that  the 
judges  being  free  from  actions  may  be  free  in  thought  and 
independent  in  judgment.  Were  it  otherwise  no  one  would 
act  at  the  peril  of  being  harassed  by  a  multiplicity  of  ac- 
tions and  of  having  his  motives  and  reasons  weighed  and 
tried  by  juries  at  the  suit  of  individuals  who  may  be  dis- 
satisfied with  his  conduct.  There  are  few  who  would  not 


(o)  Garnett  v.  Ferrand,  6  B.  &  C.,  611. 

(£)  Floyd  v.  Baker,  12  Coke's  Reports,  23  (1608)  ;  I  Lord  Ray- 
mond, 451 ;  i  Modern,  184 ;  Thomas  v.  Churton,  2  B.  &  Smith,  475  s.  c. 
8  Jurist  New  Series,  795. 


120    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

prefer  rather  to  admit  disorder  and  confusion  and  all  the  evil 
consequences  that  would  follow  from  the  indiscriminate 
admission  of  those  who  might  choose  to  intrude,  than  to 
place  themselves  in  a  situation  of  so  great  jeopardy.  It 
is  not  to  be  presumed  that  those  who  are  selected  for  the 
administration  of  justice  will  make  an  ill  use  of  authority 
vested  in  them.  In  the  imperfection  of  human  nature,  it 
is  better  even  that  an  individual  should  occasionaly  suffer 
a  wrong  than  that  the  general  course  of  justice  should  be 
impeded  and  fettered  by  constant  and  perpetual  restraint 
and  apprehensions  on  the  part  of  those  who  are  to  admin- 
ister it.  Corruption,  misconduct  or  neglect  of  duty  are 
quite  a  different  consideration ;  for  these  there  is  a  due  course 
of  punishment  by  criminal  prosecution  (g). 

"Whatever,  therefore,  may  have  formerly  been  the 
question  of  right  is  it  clear  from  the  late  decision  (r),  the 
coroner  has  the  power  of  excluding  not  only  particular 
individuals,  but  the  public  generally.  It  is,  nevertheless, 
obvious  that  in  many  cases  publicity  assists  not  only  the 
investigation  of  the  truth  but  the  detection  of  guilt,  and, 
therefore,  this  power  ought  not,  without  great  cause  and 
due  consideration,  to  be  enforced. 

"A  question  has  arisen  and  was  noted  in  a  recent  case 
(s)  as  to  the  right  of  a  coroner  to  have  a  person,  who  is  in 
custody,  charged  with  homicide  in  respect  of  which  an  in- 
quest is  being  taken,  brought  before  him  for  the  purpose  of 
identification  by  the  witnesses  to  be  examined  on  such  in- 
quest. In  that  case  an  application  was  made  to  the  court 
of  Queen's  Bench  at  the  instance  of  the  coroner  for  a  writ 
of  habeas  corpus  to  remove  the  body  of  a  man  who  stood 
committed  to  the  custody  of  the  Governor  of  Newgate  upon 
a  charge  of  murder  and  to  bring  him  before  the  coroner  and 
a  jury  of  the  county  of  Middlesex  on  an  inquest  on  the  body 
of  the  deceased  in  order  to  be  identified  by  certain  witnesses. 
The  court,  apparently  not  entertaining  grave  doubt  of 
their  power  to  issue  the  writ  declined  so  to  do  in  this  par- 

(q)  Per  Lord  Tenterden,  6  B.  &  C,  626. 
(r)  Garnett  v.  Ferrand,  6  B.  &  C,  611. 
(j)  In  re  Cook,  7  Q.  B.,  653. 


CORONERS'  INQUESTS  IN  ENGLAND  121 

ticular  case  on  the  ground  that  no  necessity  for  it  existed, 
it  not  being  shown  that  the  identification  could  not  be  af- 
fected without  producing  the  prisoner.  Lord  Denman 
said :  'I  have  the  greatest  respect  for  the  office  of  coroner 
and  I  have  always  entertained  the  highest  opinion  of  the 
services  rendered  by  that  office  in  preserving  the  lives  of 
the  subjects  of  her  Majesty.  We  ought  not,  however,  to 
exercise  our  power  of  interference  supposing  such  power 
to  exist  except  under  a  due  sense  of  the  danger  that  may 
ensue  from  taking  a  man  out  of  custody  to  which  he  has 
been  committed  upon  so  grave  a  charge  as  that  upon  which 
the  present  party  is  confined.  Nevertheless,  if  the  jury 
could  not  otherwise  go  on  with  their  inquiry,  I  should  con- 
sider anxiously  the  course  which  this  court  ought  to  per- 
sue  for  the  purpose  of  assisting  an  inferior  tribunal,  but 
here  I  see  no  difficulty  in  the  party  being  identified  on  the 
same  evidence  by  which  he  was  identified  when  he 
appeared  before  the  committing  magistrates'  and  Mr.  Justice 
Williams  observed,  'no  case  of  inconvenience  has  existed 
in  the  coroner's  court  for  centuries  by  reason  of  no  such  writ 
having  been  granted;  consequently  I  do  not  see  the  weight 
of  the  argument  as  to  inconvenience  which  will  arise  from 
our  refusing  to  grant  this  writ  now.  No  inconvenience  can 
arise  from  a  person  going  to  Newgate  to  see  the  party 
there,  but  there  is  great  inconvenience  in  letting  a  party 
in  custody  out  of  the  close  walls  of  a  prison'  "  (£). 

Sect.  55.  It  is  not  purposed  to  go  into  the  law  of 
deodand  to  any  extent  whatever.  With  the  intricacies  of 
the  law  upon  this  subject  we  are  in  no  way  concerned. 
We  are  concerned,  however,  with  the  coroner's  inquisi- 
tion concerning  deodands  and  forfeitures.  Wheresoever  the 
inquest  found  murder  it  was  the  duty  of  the  coroner  to 
further  inquire  into  the  goods  and  chattels  and  lands  of  the 
person  found  culpable,  these  were  to  be  valued  by  the  jury 
and  turned  over  to  the  vill  to  keep  on  pain  of  amercement 
and  delivered  over  by  the  town  to  the  justices  in  eyre  (w). 

(/)  This  whole  section  is  quoted  from  Jervis  on  Coroners,  p.  240, 
et  seq.  From  it  all,  Stephen  concludes  "the  coroner  may  exclude  all 
persons  form  his  inquest  if  he  thinks  desirable  for  the  purpose  of 
justice  and  decency"  Digest  of  Criminal  Procedure,  219. 

(«)  See  Statute  4  Edward  I,  i  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  40. 


122    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

So  where  death  had  been  caused  by  felony  or  misadventure 
the  deodand  was  to  be  inquired  of,  and  having  been  valued 
and  enrolled,  was  to  be  delivered  over  to  the  vill  to  keep 
until  the  coming  of  the  justices  (v~).  The  deodand  was 
the  personal  chattel  which  when  the  immediate  cause  moving 
to  the  death  of  a  reasonable  being  was  forfeited  to  the 
king  (w).  It  must  be  in  motion  or  there  is  no  deodand 
if  it  were  affixed  to  the  freehold  it  was  not  a  deodand 
(*)  but  into  the  intricacies  of  this  most  intriciate  of  all 
law,  it  is  not  profitable  to  persue  inquiry  further. 

Sect  56.  Britton  tells  us  (y)  "of  every  inquest  taken 
on  the  view  of  the  body  of  a  person  feloniously  killed  let 
the  coroner  summon  a  parent  of  the  deceased  or  more  on 
the  part  of  the  father  or  mother  to  appear  before  him  to 
prove  Englisheria  (2)  (i.  e.  that  the  deceased  was  of  Eng- 
lish extraction  and  not  a  foreigner)  according  to  the  usage 
of  the  country  and  record  their  names"  (a). 


(v)  See  Britton,  Chapter  i,  where  there  is  a  lengthy  discussion 
of  this  topic. 

(w)  Burn's  Case,  5  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  549  (1888). 

(*)  4  Justices  of  the  Peace,  536  (English). 

(y)  Britton,  c  i,  Sect.  35. 

(*)  Bracton  II,  p.  391 ;  Fleta,  c  30,  Pleas  of  Gloucester,  57. 

(a)  Fleta,  c  30. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE  EFFECT   OF  THE  INQUEST   AND   THE  RETURN. 

Sect.  57.  When  no  further  evidence  could  be  pro- 
duced the  coroner  drew  up  the  inquisition  and  he  and  the 
jurors  set  their  hands  and  seals  to  it  (&).  This  done, 
the  inquest  was  over,  a  second  could  not  be  held  unless 
and  until  the  first  was  disposed  of.  If  the  culpable  one 
was  present  he  was  seized  and  thrust  into  jail  (c).  If  he 
was  not  present,  the  coroner  could  issue  a  warrant  to  the 
sheriff  to  apprehend  him  (J). 

The  coroner  of  a  franchise  had  power  to  "make  pro- 
cess within  the  franchise  to  the  sheriff,  vide  the  case  of 
Ely,  29  Edward  III,  41  b.,  quare  how  the  usage  is  there 
viz. :  whether  the  judge  makes  out  process  of  the  liberty  and 
to  whom"  (e).  The  witnesses  or  first  finders  should  be 
bound  over  to  appear  at  the  next  gaol  delivery  and  their 
names  should  be  enrolled  together  with  those  of  their 
sureties  (/).  The  coroner  then  issued  a  warrant  to  have  the 
body  buried  (g).  If  the  person  had  been  felo  de  se  the  war- 
rant is  supposed  to  have  been  that  the  body  be  buried  in 
some  public  street  or  highway  (h).  Driving  a  stake  through 
the  body  says  Umfreville  (i)  is  a  practice  that  hath  no 
countenance  from  the  coroner's  warrant  though  it  may 
serve  to  make  the  ignominy  more  notorious  (£).  The 


(ft)  22  Assize,  94.  As  late  as  1840  it  was  held  in  Regina  v.  Stock- 
dale,  8  Dowl.  P.  C,  516,  that  where  several  of  the  jury  were  marksmen 
and  their  marks  were  not  attested  the  inquest  should  be  quashed.  Over- 
ruling Lewen's  Case,  2  Lewin  C.  C.,  125  (1834)  where  it  was  held  that 
several  of  the  jury  being  marksmen  those  who  were  not  might  be  at- 
testing witnesses  to  those  who  were. 

(c)  Bracton,  f  I2ib;  4  Edward  I,  i  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  40; 
Fleta,  Book  I,  cap.  25,  Sect.  5. 

(d)  Britton,  c  i,  Sect.  17;  Chitty  Criminal  Law,  164;  Jervis  on 
Coroners,  46. 

(/)  Bracton,  f  I2ib;  4  Edward  I,  i  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  40. 

(/)  Bracton,  f  I2ib;  4  Edward  I,  I  -Statutes  of  the  Realm,  29. 

(g)  Britton,  c  I,  Sect.  7 ;  Fleta  Lib.  I,  cap.  25,  Sect.  8. 

(h)  Umfreville  Lex  Coronatoris,  8.  , 

(»)  Umfreville,  it  must  be  remembered  was  himself  a  coroner. 

(fc)  Umfreville  Lex  Coronatoris,  9. 

(123) 


124    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

coroner's  duties  did  not  end  there.  Under  the  statute  of 
Marlbridge,  chapter  13  (/),  it  is  necessary  that  he  should 
turn  in  all  his  inquests  (returns)  to  the  justices  in  eyre  by 
a  certain  day,  when  the  felon  must  be  there  or  at  least  on 
the  next  day  assigned  (m).  This  was  altered  by  the 
statute  of  third  Henry  VII  which  provides  that  the  cor- 
oner must  seal  and  certify  his  inquisition  into  the  next  gaol 
delivery  or  into  the  Court  of  King's  Bench  under  pain  of 
£5  (n).  If  the  coroner  refuse  or  neglect  to  return  the 
inquisition,  certiorari  is  the  proper  method  to  force  a  re- 
turn or  to  remove  it  into  the  King's  Bench  or  Chancery 
(0).  By  the  statute  cf  I  &  2  Phillip  &  Mary,  chapter  13, 
(/>)  as  we  have  seen  (#)  where  the  inquisition  finds  mur- 
der or  manslaughter,  the  coroner  ought  to  put  the  effect  of 
the  evidence  "being  material"  into  writing  and  return  it 
with  the  inquisition  and  the  recognizances  of  the  witnesses 
he  has  bound  over  to  appear  at  the  next  gaol  delivery  (r). 
But  if  the  return  is  felo  de  se  he  is  not  obliged  to  return 
the  depositions  (s}.  Although  Blackstone  tells  us  that  he 
"must  certify  the  whole  of  his  inquisition  '(under  his 
own  seal  and  the  seals  of  his  jurors  together  with  the  evi- 
dence thereon)  to  the  Court  of  King's  Bench  or  the  next 
assizes"  (t),  it  is  hardly  correct  to  say  that  the  evidence 
should  be  returned  in  cases  not  within  the  statute  of  Phillip 
&  Mary.  The  coroner  of  the  admiralty  returns  his  inquisi- 
tions before  the  commissioners  in  admiralty ;  the  coroner  of 

(/)  1267,  i  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  23. 

(m)  Ibid. 

(n)  See  2  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  510  (1487)  and  see  i  Kale's 
Pleas  of  the  Crown,  418.  In  Lord  Buckhurst's  Case,  I  Keble,  280  fol. 
8l,  where  murder  was  found,  the  coroner  kept  the  inquest  in  his 
pocket  instead  of  returning  it.  He  was  discharged  and  fined  iioo. 

(0)  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  64;  Kale's  Summary,  171; 
2  Coke's  Institutes,  176.  The  fact  that  the  inquisition  was  taken  after 
the  certiorari  tested  did  not  vitiate  it.  Anonymous,  2  Lord  Ray- 
mond, 1305  (1710). 

(/»)  4  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  Part  II,  p.  250  (1554). 

(q)  Ante,  Sect.  53. 

(r)  Or  Assize. 

(j)  Rex  v.  Sutton,  Strange,  1073. 

(0  I  Commentaries,  349,  citing  33  Henry  VIII,  c  12;  i  Philip  & 
Mary,  c  13;  2  West  Symbol,  Sect.  310;  Compton,  264;  Tremains  Pleas 
of  the  Crown,  621;  Lord  Hale  says  the  county  coroner  returns  his  in- 
quisitions before  the  commissioners  of  gaol  delivery,  2  Pleas  of  the 
Crown,  54. 


EFFECT  OF  INQUEST  AND  RETURN  125 

the  verge  before  the  lord  master  or  lord  steward  of  the 
Household  (M)  ;  the  coroner  of  a  franchise  before  the 
judge  of  gaol  delivery  in  the  franchise  (v). 

The  return  thus  made  had  in  cases  of  felony  the  effect 
of  an  indictment  (w)  and  could  be  pleaded  to  in  the  same 
way  (;r).  Thereon  the  party  might  be  tried  without  the 
intervention  of  a  grand  jury  (;y).  We  may,  therefore, 
expect  that  the  inquest  must  be  drawn  up  with  great  pre- 
cision and  such  was  the  case.  Umfreville  tells  us  "the  an- 
cient form  or  mode  of  inquest  is  not  as  I  can  find  anywhere 
publickly  (sic)  or  directly  given  to  show  us,  other  than 
by  implications"  (2).  The  coroner  was  held  to  all  the  pre- 
ciseness  of  an  indictment  for  felony  (a).  He  must  sub- 
scribe his  official  title  to  the  inquest  (b).  If  he  was  lord 
of  a  franchise  he  must  in  his  return  style  himself  "cor- 
oner" or  his  inquisition  was  void,  a  fortiori  if  he  was  only 
coroner  for  a  lord  of  a  franchise  (c)  and  so  when  Lord 
Berkley's  coroner  neglected  to  state  how  Lord  Berkley  came 
to  make  him  coroner  (d),  the  return  v/as  quashed  (e). 
The  caption  must  not  only  name  the  coroner  as  such,  but 
the  date  and  year  of  the  king's  reign  must  be  set  forth 
(/)  and  the  year  of  our  Lord  must  be  stated  and  in  Ro- 


(u)  2  Kale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  54,  citing  33  Henry  VIII,  c  12, 
Sect.  3 ;  28  Henry  VIII,  c  15. 

(v)  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  68. 

(a/)   I  Chitty  on  Criminal  Law,  163;  Jervis  on  Coroners,  326. 

(*•)  Jervis  on  the  Law  of  Coroners,  326.  If  both  the  grand  jury 
and  inquest  find  him  guilty  he  must  be  arraigned  on  the  inquest  and 
plead  antreforis  acquit  or  he  will  be  liable  to  be  outlawed  on  the  in- 
quest, 2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  65.  But  if  both  are  exactly  alike 
he  may  be  arraigned  and  tried  on  both  at  once,  Ibid. 

(y)  3  Campbell,  371;  I  Salkeld,  382;  2  Leach,  1095. 

(*)  Lex  Coronatoris  XXXI,  and  we  would  agree  with  him  had 
not  Jervis  in  Chapter  X,  p.  273,  given  us  such  an  excellent  form  (see 
appendix).  There  is  also  an  inquest  set  forth  at  length  in  Long's  Case, 
5  Coke's  Reports,  i2Oa  (1605). 

(a)  Queen  v.  Clerk,  i  Salkeld,  377  (1702). 

(&)  Schrogs  v.  Spencer,  Moore,  548,  pi.  734  (1675). 

(c)  22  Edward  IV,   12. 

(d)  Where  in  law,  Lord  Berkley's  power  to  create  a  coroner  came 
from. 

(<r)  Pinner's  Case,  Croke's  Elizabeth,  31  pi.  4  (1548)  ;  Bearing's 
Case,  Croke's  Elizabeth,  193  pi.  7. 

(/)  King  v.  Heatherfall,  3  Modern,  80  (1685)  and  see  I  Salkeld  90; 
12  Modern,  496;  2  Jones,  198;  Carthew,  72;  2  Levinz,  141-152. 


126    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

man  numerals  (g).  This  must  be  very  carefully  done 
for  the  caption,  it  was  thought,  was  not  amendable  (h). 
The  place  where  holden  must  appear  (»)>  for  if  the  inquisi- 
tion set  forth  no  place  it  was  insufficient  (&),  or  if  it  did 
not  show  a  place  within  the  coroner's  jurisdiction  (/).  The 
return  must  show  the  date  with  exactness,  for  if  it  were 
held  on  Sunday  it  was  void  (m).  The  nature  of  the  death 
should  be  most  particularly  set  forth  (n).  If  by  wound, 
the  place,  length  and  depth  of  the  wound  should  be  men- 
tioned (0),  and  whether  there  was  one  or  more  than  one 
wound  and  by  what  weapon  it  was  made,  and  who  did  the 
wounding  (/»)  and  that  the  wound  was  fatal  (q).  It 
should  be  specifically  stated  by  whom  the  crime  was  com- 
mitted (r),  if  the  person  was  unknown,  he  was  called 
John-a-Noke  (s),  or  it  was  said  the  person  was  unknown. 
The  return  must  specify  the  names  of  jurors  (t)  and  that 


(0)  And  where  it  was  in  common  figures  the  return  was  quashed. 
Rex  v.  Phillips,  i  Strange,  261  (1720). 

(K)  Anonymous,  Comberback,  70. 

(*)  Pinner's  Case,  Croke's  Elizabeth,  31  pi.  4  (1584),  where  A 
being  coroner  of  Ludlow  only  "cepit  inquisitionem  super  visum  corporis 
infra  metas  et  hundredas  comitat"  it  was  held  void,  and  see  King  v. 
Cross,  Keble,  744  (1664),  and  2  Kale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  66. 

(&)  Anonymous,  2  Lord  Raymond,  1305  (1710),  and  See  Dyer,  69. 

(/)  Thorney's  Case,  Croke's  James,  276  (1612).  But  where  it 
was  set  forth  to  have  been  held  at  B,  before  J.  S.  coroner  of  the 
King's  liberty  of  B  it  need  not  be  set  forth  that  B  is  within  the  said 
liberty  for  that  cannot  but  be  intended,  Long's  Case,  5  Coke's  Reports, 
I2ob  (1605). 

(m)  King  v.  Bunney,  2  Saunders,  291.  See  Jervis  on  Coroners, 
279- 

(n)  King  v.  Solway,  3  Modern,  100  pi.  61  (1686).  Anonymous, 
12  Modern,  112  (1697)  thus  where  the  jury  found  a  post  in  the  road 
was  one  of  the  causes  of  the  death,  the  inquest  was  quashed  for 
uncertainty. 

(0)  2  Kale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  58. 

(/>)  4  Edward  I,  i  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  40. 

(g)  Queen  v.  Clerk,  i  Salkeld,  377  (1702) ;  King  v.  Parker,  2 
Levinz,  141;  Stanlack's  Case,  i  Ventris,  181  s.  c.;  i  Modern,  671  (1675); 
Anonymous,  i  Ventris,  352  (1680). 

(r)  In  Regina  v.  Stockdale,  8  Dowl.  P.  C,  516  (1840),  an  inquest 
was  held  bad  for  not  so  stating. 

(j)  2  Kale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  64-65. 

(0  Pinner's  Case,  Croke's  Elizabeth,  31  pi.  4  (1584);  Fitzherbert's 
Abridgment  Title  Coroners,   107;  Staundeford's   Pleas  of  the  Cro\ 
51 ;  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  77. 


EFFECT  OF  INQUEST  AND  RETURN  127 

they  were  good  and  lawful  men  (w).  But  it  was  not  neces- 
sary to  state  that  they  were  of  the  four  next  vills  (v),  for 
that  the  court  intended  («;).  Hawkins  doubts  this  for  he 
says  it  is  a  material  part  of  the  inquest  and  no  material 
part  of  an  indictment  (for  an  inquest  is  an  indictment)  will 
be  intended;  though  he  acknowledges  that  the  authorities 
are  against  his  view  (*).  The  return  must  state  that  the 
jurors  were  sworn  (3;).  It  ought  also  to  contain  the  names 
of  all  witnesses  or  parties  let  by  mainprize  to  the  next 
assize  (or  goal  delivery)  and  of  their  pledges  (z}.  In 
some  cases  technical  words  were  required,  thus,  where  there 
was  a  verdict  of  felo  de  se  the  omission  of  the  words  "per 
cussit"  has  been  held  fatal  (a).  "Sic  seipsum  murdravit" 
has  also  been  held  essential  (6),  but  there  are  instances 
where  they  have  been  omitted  (c}.  In  Regina  v.  Clerk  (d) 
it  was  said  that  the  word  "murdravit"  was  not  necessary,  and 


(M)  Lord  Coke  has  said  they  need  not  be  described  as  good  and 
lawful  men  for  they  are  presumed  to  be  so  until  proved  otherwise,  see 
4  Justices  of  the  Peace  (Eng.)  535.  But  in  Earl  of  Berkshire's  Case, 
Palmer,  252  (1623),  where  the  coroner  omitted  the  words  probum  el 
legalum  hominum,  the  return  was  quashed  for  they  might  have  been 
villeins.  See  Francis  City's  Case,  Croke's  James,  635,  pi.  2  (1623),  and 
in  Withipole's  Case,  Jones,  198-9  s.  c. ;  Croke's  Charles,  134,  Ley.  81 
(1628)  two  of  the  jury  were  outlaws  and  the  return  was  quashed. 

(v)  King  v.  Cross,  Keble,  744  (1664)  to  say  that  they  were  law- 
ful men  without  saying  that  they  were  of  the  next  town  is  sufficient 
so  that  it  appears  by  what  jurors  it  was  taken,  i  Siderfen,  204,  i 
Keble,  416-723-727-744,  contra,  Latch,  166;  Popham,  210;  Coke's  Book 
of  Entries,  354;  Pinner's  Case,  Croke's  Elizabeth,  31  (1584);  I  Hale's 
Pleas  of  the  Crown,  416 ;  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c  9,  Sect.  22 ; 
Poph.  210,  being  good  before  the  statute  it  is  still  good,  2  Hawkins's 
Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c  9,  Sect.  22.  But  in  Anonymous,  2  Lord  Ray- 
mond, 1305  (1710),  the  inquest  was  quashed  because  it  was  "per  sacre- 
mentum  duodecim  and  does  not  say  proborum  et  legalum  hominum  nor 
for  what  plea." 

(w)  Berkley's  Case,  2  Siderfen,  90-101-144  (1658),  and  see  I  Hale's 
Pleas  of  the  Crown,  410. 

(*•)  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c  9,  Sect.  22. 

(y)  Pinner's  Case,  Croke's  Elizabeth,  31  (1584) ;  2  Hawkins's 
Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c  9,  Sect.  22;  i  Siderfen,  204;  Keble,  727,  744, 
contra,  Latch,  166;  Popham,  210;  Coke's  Entries,  354. 

(*)  22  Assize,  94;  4  Edward  I,  and  see  3  Henry  VII. 

(a)  Palmer,  252 ;  Croke's  James,  635. 

(&)  Per  Twisden,  J.,  I  Siderfen,  204;  per  Holt,  C.  J.,  in  Queen  v. 
Clerk,  i  Salkeld,  377  (1702)  ;  Plowden,  255;  I  Saunders,  256. 

(c)  i  Keble,  66;  7  Modern,  16,  but  see  Queen  v.  Clerk,  i  Salkeld, 
377  (1702),  yet  it  has  been  said  if  the  finding  is  correct  in  substance 
though  defective  in   form  it  may  be  amended,  King  v.   Harrison,   I 
Siderfen,  255-259;  3  Modern,  101. 

(d)  (1702)  i  Salkeld,  377. 


128    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

that  the  inquisition  might  stand  as  an  indictment  for  man- 
slaughter. It  is  to  be  noted  that  that  was  a  case  where  the 
jury  found  "Clerk  cum  cultro  jugulum  suum  voluntarie  & 
felonice  &  ut  felo  de  se  &  seipsum  murdravit"  (dd).  The 
inquest  was  sought  to  be  quashed  on  two  grounds.  Con- 
cerning the  second,  it  was  said  per  cur.  "The  inquisition 
is  good  without  the  word  murdravit  for  it  is,  as  an  indict- 
ment, a  finding  of  manslaughter,  and  so  it  was  held  in  Dame 
Hale's  case."  We  have  an  authority  for  the  proposition  that 
the  inquest  may  be  amended  in  all  points,  but  the  verdict, 
provided  it  be  done  in  open  court  (e).  It  was  said  more 
recently  that  if  the  finding  were  correct  in  substance,  though 
defective  in  form  it  might  be  amended  (/),  and  yet  it  must 
be  remembered  that  it  had  been  held  the  caption  could  not 
be  amended  (gr),  and  a  variance  between  the  name  of  a 
juror  in  the  caption  and  the  name  the  juror  signed  had  been 
held  fatal  (ft).  It  is  difficult  to  see  the  reason  for  saying 
that  the  return  is  amendable  for  it  is  not  within 
the  statute  of  jeo fails  (i),  but  it  must  be  re- 
membered that  where  an  inquest  would  have  been 
good  before  the  statute  of  4  Edward  I,  it  is  still  good  (&). 
Once  the  inquest  was  filed  no  melius  inquirendum  (/) 
could  be  awarded  until  the  inquest  was  quashed  (w). 
If  the  inquest  be  quashed  because  of  a  male  se  gessit,  a 
melius  inquirendum  should  be  awarded  (n)  and  the  new 
inquest  so  directed  to  be  taken  should  be  taken  by  the 

(dd)  This  is  evidently  a  misprint  for  "occidit." 

(e)  King  v.  Harrison,  i  Siderfen,  255 ;  pi.  18,  and  see  I  Siderfen, 
259- 

(/)  King  v.  Solway,  3  Modern,  101  (1686). 

(g)  Anonymous,  Comberback,  70. 

(fc)  4  Justices  of  the  Peace  (Eng.),  519. 

(i)  Jervis,  p.  273. 

(*)  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c  9,  Sect.  22. 

(/)  A  writ  which  issued  after  an  imperfect  inquisition  by  the  cor- 
oner commanding  the  sheriff  or  commissioners  to  summon  another  in- 
quest in  order  to  more  correctly  ascertain,  etc. 

(m)  King  v.  Stanlake,  2  Keble,  859  (1671)  if  the  inquest  is  de- 
fective it  should  be  quashed  by  the  court  before  which  the  party  is 
arraigned,  but  this  should  be  done  before  plea  Bunny's  Case. 
Carthew,  72. 

(n)  Croke's  Elizabeth,  371;  3  Keble,  800-855;  Salkeld,  190;  Cathew, 
72;  i  Ventns,  181-352;  3  Modern,  80-100-238;  contra,  2  Jones,  198. 


EFFECT  OF  INQUEST  AND  RETURN  129 

sheriff  or  justices  or  by  special  commissioners  (0),  but  if  it 
was  quashed  for  any  other  reason,  the  coroner  simply  took 
another  inquest  super  visum  corporis  (/>). 

In  order  that  a  melius  inquirendum  should  be  granted 
it  must  appear  that  the  coroner  was  corrupt  in  taking  the 
inquest.  Thus,  if  one  be  found  by  the  coroner  to  be  dead 
per  infortunium  and  it  is  suggested  to  the  Court  of  King's 
Bench  that  he  was  in  fact  felo  de  se  a  melius  inquiredum 
should  not  issue,  the  coroner  is  the  proper  person  to  take 
the  new  inquest  (q).  So  where  the  deceased  was  felo  de 
se  and  the  coroner's  inquest  found  him  a  lunatic,  Mr.  Jones 
moved  for  a  melius  inquiredum,  but  it  was  denied  because 
there  was  no  defect  in  the  inquisition,  but  the  court  told  him 
that  if  he  could  produce  an  affidavit  that  the  jury  did  not 
go  according  to  the  evidence  or  of  any  indirect  proceedings 
by  the  coroner,  they  would  grant  it  (r).  In  King  v.  Alden- 
ham  (,?),  A  committed  suicide  and  the  jury  were  going  to 
bring  him  in  non  compos  mentis,  but  the  coroner  adjourned 
them  from  time  to  time.,  until  they  came  to  his  idea  and  found 
it  felo  de  se,  it  was  moved  three  times  to  set  the  inquest 
aside  for  practice  (t),  but  Hale,  C.  J.,  said  the  executors 
might  traverse  the  inquest  (u)  and  refused  the  melius  *w- 

(o)  2  Kale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  59-69;  2  Rolle's  Abridgment, 
23;  21  Edward  IV,  70b;  i  Salkeld,  190;  2  Siderfen,  204;  Strange,  69;  I 
Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  415 ;  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c  9, 
Sect.  56. 

(/>)  Croke's  Elizabeth,  371;  3  Keble,  800-856;  I  Modern,  82;  I 
Salkeld,  190;  I  Ventris,  181-352;  3  Modern,  80-100-238;  contra,  2  Jones, 
198,  or  has  committed  a  misdemeanor,  I  Ventris,  182-352,  King  v. 
Hetherfall,  3  Modern,  80-238  (1685)  ;  2  Jones,  198;  Carthew,  72:  Un- 
due practice"  was  long  considered  sufficient  ground  for  a  melius  m- 
quirendum,  Anonymous,  i  Ventris,  352  (1680).  See  3  Modern,  80;  I  Sal- 
keld, 190;  12  Modern,  493,  but  a  melius  inquirendum  granted  because 
the  fact  that  the  deceased  was  felo  de  se  had  been  suggested  to  the 
King's  Bench  was  held  void,  2  Anderson,  204,  and  the  whole  doctrine 
was  questioned  in  King  v.  Wakefield,  I  Strange,  69  (1718),  because 
the  practice  could  not  appear  on  the  record. 

(q)  Aurlstone's  Case,  Fitzherbert's  Natura  Brevium,  144,  25°, 
though  contra,  Croke's  Elizabeth  n.  13. 

(r)  King  v.  Hetherfall,  3  Modern,  80  (1685),  and  see  King  v. 
Bunney,  i  Salkeld,  190;  Carthew,  72  (1689)  ;  12  Modern,  496;  2  Jones, 
198;  i  Ventris,  181,  and  see  Strange,  22-167-533,  2  Levinz,  141;  Croke  s 
Elizabeth,  371;  3  Keble,  800;  2  Strange,  1073,  1097. 

(j)  2  Levinz  152  (1675)  s.  c.,  sub  nom  Rex  v.  Alderman,  i  Ven- 
tris, 278 ;  sub  nom  Anoymous,  Freeman,  419-443- 

(0  The  coroner  received  £8. 

(«)  It  is  hard  to  see  how  this  can  be  for  a  felo  de  se  can  have 
neither  executors  nor  administrators,  King  v.  Warnngton,  I  Salkeld, 
152  pi.  2  (1692). 


130    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

quircmlum.  In  Stanlack's  case  (v)  the  inquisition  found 
that  the  deceased  came  to  his  end  from  a  meagrim  (head- 
ache) at  Greenwich.  Sir  Edward  Thurland  moved  for 
a  melius  inquirendum  producing  several  affidavits  to  the  effect 
"that  Stanlack  was  riding  in  the  highway  and  a  coach 
with  six  horses,  rushing  by  him,  cast  him  from  his  horse 
and  killed  him,  and  that  drivers  offered  to  prove  this  before 
the  coroner  and  he  would  not  hear  them."  The  court  said 
that  where  practice  was  proved  on  the  part  of  the  coroner 
a  melius  inquirendum  might  issue  and  in  this  case  thought  the 
misdemeanor  of  the  coroner  should  have  been  more  clearly 
set  out.  In  Rex  v.  Wakefield  («;)  where  it  fully  appeared 
that  the  deceased  was  a  lunatic,  but  the  coroner  for  the  pur- 
pose of  securing  the  forfeiture  told  the  jury  to  bring  in  a 
verdict  of  felo  de  se,  for  it  was  the  same  as  non  compos 
mentis,  they  found  felo  de  se;  hearing  of  the  consequence 
the  jury  came  to  the  coroner  and  told  him  they  were  satis- 
field  the  man  was  a  lunatic,  the  coroner  drew  up  a  new  inqui- 
sition and  the  jury  set  their  hands  to  it,  but  on  a  certiorari 
being  taken  the  coroner  returned  the  first  inquest.  The  court 
stayed  the  filing  of  it  and  committed  the  coroner.  In  King 
v.  Ripley  (*)  it  appeared  that  the  Lord  of  the  Manor  had 
used  practice  to  have  a  return  of  felo  de  se  made  but  the 
court  directed  that  the  administrator  should  traverse  the 
return. 

In  King  v.  Solway  (y)  the  deceased  had  drowned  him- 
self and  the  inquest  found  him  non  compos  mentis  because 
it  is  more  generally  supposed  that  a  man  in  his  senses  would 
not  be  felo  de  se,  but  a  melius  inquirendum  was  refused  (2). 
In  King  v.  Atkinson  (a)  the  court  went  so  far  as  to  say 
that  where  the  coroner  had  been  indicted  for  malpractice 
the  quashing  of  the  return  and  the  grant  of  the  melius 
should  be  stayed  until  the  determination  of  the  indictment. 

(v)  i  Ventris,  181  (1671)  s.  c.;  i  Modern,  82 

(o>)  i  Strange,  69  (1718). 

(x)  Skinner,  45  pi.  16;  2  Jones,  198  (1680). 

(y)  3  Modern,  100  pi.  61  (1683). 

(*)  See  2  Levinz,  140;  i  Sid.  225,  259;  i  Salkeld,  377. 

(a)   12  Modern,  496  (1702). 


EFFECT  OF  INQUEST  AND  RETURN  131 

There  is  some  doubt  as  to  what  was  done  if  the  jury 
misbehaved.  The  case  of  King  v.  Heathershall  (6)  seems 
to  say  there  should  be  a  melius  inquirendum.  If  they  found 
facts  totally  unwarranted  by  the  evidence  this  seems  to  be 
so  (c).  But  upon  a  surmise  that  the  coroner  ought  to 
have  found  the  deceased  felo  de  se  and  has  not,  the  court 
would  refuse  a  melius  inquirendum.  But  this  was  often 
denied,  for  it  was  claimed  to  be  within  the  satute  of  28 
Edward  III,  chapter  9  (d).  Yet  it  has  been  held  that  if  the 
coroner  omit  to  find  the  goods  of  a  felo  de  se,  there  may  be 
a  melius  inquirendum  (e)  or  even  if  he  find  them  erroneously 
(/).  But  there  could  be  no  melius  inquirendum  awarded  on 
the  statute  of  34  Edward  III,  chapter  14. 

Sect.  58.  Hawkins  heads  the  thirty-third  section  of 
the  ninth  chapter  of  his  Pleas  of  the  Crown  "what  high 
credit  the  law  gives  to  an  inquisition  death  before  a  cor- 
oner" (#).  Anciently  the  verdict  had  more  weight  than 
at  present  and  judges  would  not  receive  a  verdict  acquitting 
a  person  found  guilty  by  the  coroner's  jury  unless  the  petit 
jury  found  the  person  did  the  fact  but  was  not  guilty  for 
other  reasons  or  unless  they  found  by  what  other  means  the 
party  came  to  his  death  (h).  But  this  opinion  became  obso- 
lete (*').  It  is  agreed  that  the  judges  cannot  compel  a  jury 
to  make  such  a  further  inquiry  on  acquittal  of  a  defendant 
from  any  other  indictment  "because  it  doth  not  in  such  man- 
ner appear  of  record  by  any  such  inquisition  that  a  person  is 
dead."  It  seems  hard  to  reconcile  the  practice  of  compelling 
a  jury  to  find  such  further  matter  with  reason  in  any  case 

(&)  3  Modern,  80  (1685). 

(c)  The  King  v.  The  Coroner,  Comberback,  2   (1686).     But  this 
hardly  seems  fair  to  the  coroner  as  he  must  accept  their  findings,  ante, 
Sect.  52. 

(d)  See  King  v.  Heathershall,  3  Modern,  80  (1680)  and  2  Male's 
Pleas  of  the  Crown,  59. 

(*)  I  Kale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  415. 

(/)  Palmer  v.  Humphrey,  Croke's  Elizabeth,  584,  pi.  13. 

(0)  See  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  Book  2,  cap.  52. 

(h)  13  Edward  IV,  3  pi-  7!  37  Assize  13;  "  Henry  IV,  93;  M 
Henry  VII,  2b  Fitzherbert,  Coroners,  213;  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  »ne 
Crown,  181,  and  Book  2,  cap.  52;  2  Kale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  301 ; 
Finch,  415;  Brooke's  Abridgment  Title  Appeal,  42,  112,  Ibid 
Indictment,  10,  35;  Ibid  Title  Coroners,  32-39-52-117.  2  Hawkins  s 
Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c.  9,  Sect.  33. 

(1)  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c  9.  Sect.  33. 


132    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

unless  it  appear  in  the  course  of  the  evidence  by  what  other 
means  not  mentioned  in  the  indictment  (or  inquisition)  the 
party  lost  his  life  (£).  On  first  blush  it  would  seem  if  there 
was  any  evidence  on  which  an  acquittal  could  be  based 
there  must  be  some  on  which  to  rest  the  further  finding,  but 
on  putting  the  case  of  a  pure  alibi  the  mirage  disappears. 
Chitty  says  (/)  the  finding  of  a  grand  jury  is  of  more  weight 
than  that  of  the  coroner;  the  reason  which  he  gives,  how- 
ever, is  wholly  inadequate.  He  says  it  is  because  the  court 
will  at  discretion  bail  after  return  of  murder  by  the  cor- 
oner's inquest,  but  never  after  the  same  return  by  a  grand 
jury,  but  the  reason  of  that  is  simply  that  in  the  former  case 
the  court  has  before  it  the  evidence  upon  which  the  find- 
ing was  based,  but  not  in  the  latter  case.  In  Rex  v.  Dai- 
ton  (m)  a  boy  had  the  misfortune  to  kill  his  schoolfellow 
and  the  coroner's  jury  found  it  murder.  Habeas  corpus 
was  brought  and  the  boy  was  taken  before  Lord  Raymond 
at  his  home.  The  chief  justice,  after  examining  the  depo- 
sitions before  the  coroner  admitted  the  boy  to  bail  saying 
the  depositions  were  a  guide  to  the  court's  discretion  and  he 
himself  had  refused  bail  to  Mr.  Clifton,  although  the  ver- 
dict was  only  manslaughter,  for  the  depositions  made  it  out 
murder.  However,  it  now  "appears  from  the  best  authors 
that  the  inquests  of  the  coroner  are  in  no  case  con- 
clusive and  that  one  affected  by  them  either  collaterally  or 
otherwise  may  deny  their  authority  and  put  them  in  issue" 
(n).  The  only  verdicts  upon  which  any  doubt  has  been 
entertained  are  those  of  flight  and  felo  de  se  (0).  It  is  prob- 
ably still  true,  however,  that  an  inquisition  which  acquits 
a  man  cannot  be  traversed  (/>),  that  is  to  say,  the  king 

(k)  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c.  9,  Sect.  33. 

(/)   I  Criminal  Law,  164. 

(m)  2  Strange,  911  (1722),  and  see  Rex  v.  Magrath,  2  Strange, 
1242  (1746). 

(»)  3  Keb.,  489. 

(0)  Jervis  on  Coroners,  318. 

(P)  Anonymous,  r  Ventris,  239  "but  it  is  agreed  that  no  inquisi- 
tion can  be  traversed  to  make  a  man  felo  de  se  who  is  found  not  to  be 
so.  So  if  they  find  him  non  compos  mentis  neither  the  crown  nor  its 
grantee  can  traverse  it."  i  East's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  389 ;  Anonymous, 
I  Ventris,  239;  Foster's  Criminal  Law,  266.  If  the  inquest  which  acquits 
cannot  be  traversed  parallel  proceedings  can  be  taken  before  the 
grand  jury. 


EFFECT  OF  INQUEST  AND  RETURN  133 

never  traverses  (q).  High  credit  was  given  to  the  findings 
"felo  de  se"  and  "fungam  fecit"  (r).  Occasionally  we 
find  authority  to  the  effect  that  "the  coroner's  inquest  is 
conclusive"  0),  and  by  the  weight  of  authority  fungam 
fecit  is  not  traversable  (/).  This  doctrine  rests  on  a 
dictum  in  8  Edward  IV  quoted  by  Hale  and  Staundeford, 
but  there  appears  to  be  no  instance  in  which  the  court  has 
acted  upon  it  (M).  The  reason  which  is  usually  given  to 
prove  that  the  finding  of  fugam  fecit  is  not  traversable  is 
that  all  persons  of  the  neighboring  towns  are  bound  to 
attend,  from  twelve  years  old  and  upward  so  that  unless 
the  suspect  has  fled  he  must  be  present  (z/).  There  is 
much  authority  for  the  proposition  that  the  finding  of  felo 
de  se  is  not  traversable  (w~),  but  the  better  opinion  seems 
to  be  that  it  is  (*).  As  to  the  finding  of  fugam  fecit  the 
question  still  remains  how  can  it  be  final,  taken  as  it  is  in  the 
absence  of  the  party  (y).  Indeed,  upon  principle  there  is 


(q)  King  v.  Storke,  2  Keble,  800  (1679)  ;  Anoymous,  i  Ventris. 
239- 

(r)  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c  9,  Sect.  34,  as  to  the  con- 
clusiveness  of  felo  de  se,  see  i  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  417. 

(j)  Rex  v.  Parker,  3  Keble,  489;  2  Levinz,  140,  but  see  contra,  a 
Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  60. 

(/)  Fitzherbert's  Abridgment  Title  Coroners,  151 ;  8  Edward  IV,  4; 
2  Levinz,  141 ;  Brooke's  Abridgment  Title  Traverse,  sans  do  229,  3 
Keble,  564-6 ;  i  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  363,  414-5-7 ;  2  Hale's  Pleas 
of  the  Crown,  63-64,  301 ;  King  v.  Parker,  2  Levinz,  141  (1675)  ;  Anony- 
mous, i  Ventris,  239,  278,  352;  Brooke's  Abridgment  Title  Coroners, 
151;  Title  Traverse,  229;  Hale's  Summary,  170;  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of 
the  Crown,  c  9,  Sect.  54;  Popham,  209;  i  Rolle's  Reports,  217;  2  Sid- 
erfen,  90,  contra  2  Siderfen  101. 

(M)  See  Hale's  remarks,  i  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  417. 

(v)  2  Coke's  Institutes,  147-8;  3  Keble,  566;  i  Hale's  Pleas  of  the 
Crown,  363,  and  see  3  Coke's  Institutes,  55 ;  2  Levinz,  141 ;  Hale's  Sum- 
mary, 29;  r  Ventris,  181-2;  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c  9,  Sect 
54,  and  i  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  417. 

(a/)  Some  say  that  no  inquest  finding  felo  de  se  may  be  traversed, 
8  Edward  IV,  4b;  i  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c  9,  Sect,  n  and 
cases  there  cited,  Brook's  Abridgment  Title  Coroners,  151 ;  King  v. 
Parker,  2  Levinz,  141  (1675);  2  Levinz,  152;  2  Keble,  859;  2  Siderfen, 
90-101-144;  2  Jones,  198,  i  Ventris,  278;  3  Keble,  564-566-604-800 
Skinner,  45  pi.  16 ;  Coke's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  55 ;  Staundeford's  Pleas 
of  the  Crown,  c.  52,  but  see  cases  cited  in  Rex  v.  Roupel,  Cowper,,  458, 
and  Rex  v.  Heaton,  2  Durnford  and  East,  184. 

(*)  8  Edward  IV,  4;  45  Edward  III,  reported  i  Hale's  Pleas  of 
the  Crown,  417;  King  v.  Aldenham,  3  Keblc,  564,  566  (1675).  where 
Hale  said  no  inquest  was  not  traversable  but  fugam  fecit  and  that  by 
estopple  and  see  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c  9,  Sect.  55. 

(y)  Yet  an  ordinary  judgment  by  default  is  final. 


134    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

no  reason  why  fugam  fecit  found  by  the  coroner  is  not 
as  traversable  as  any  other  inquisition  and  the  doubt  in 
this  respect  rests  on  no  better  foundation  than  the  dictum 
before  alluded  to  (2). 

"Lord  Coke  is  of  opinion  that  an  inquisition  of  felo 
de  se  taken  before  the  coroner  super  visum  corporis  is  not 
traversable  and  is  conclusive  upon  the  executors  and  ad- 
ministrators of  the  deceased  (a)  but  the  reasons  suggested 
by  Staundeford  (&)  whom  he  quotes,  are  very  unsatisfac- 
tory. Lord  Hale  is  of  a  different  opinion  (c)  conceiving 
it  to  be  a  great  hardship  that  an  inquisition  which  is  no 
more  than  an  inquest  of  office  taken  perhaps  behind  the 
backs  of  the  executors  or  administrators  of  the  deceased 
should  be  conclusive  (rf)  and  he  cites  Barclee's  case  (e)  and 
a  record  in  the  Exchequer  (/)  where  a  creditor  of  one  Paige 
who  was  found  felo  de  se  by  a  coroner's  inquisition  tra- 
versed the  finding  and  the  jury  found  that  he  was  not  felo 
de  se,  from  which  he  concludes  that  the  inquisition  is  as 
much  traversable  as  a  presentment  before  the  justices  of 
oyer  and  terminer  or  of  the  peace,  which  is  admitted  to  be 
traversable."  It  seems  indeed  to  be  now  fully  established 
(g}  that  such  an  inquisition  may  be  removed  into  the 
King's  Bench  by  certiorari  and  traversed  by  the  executors 
or  administrators  of  the  deceased  (h). 


(*)  Jervis  on  the  Law  of  Coroners,  319;  i  Saunders,  363;  i  East's 
Pleas  of  the  Crown,  391. 

(a)  3  Coke's  Institutes,  55. 

(&)  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  183. 

(O  Anonymous,  i  Ventris,  239,  and  see  I  Ventris,  278;  King  v. 
Ripley,  2  Jones,  198;  2  Levinz,  152. 

(d)  i  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  416-417. 

(*)  i  Siderfen,  90,  101  (1650). 

(/)  45  Edward  III,  Walter  Paige's  Case  and  see  8  Edward  IV,  4. 

(0)  King  v.  Ripley,  Skinner,  45  pi.  16  s.  c. ;  2  Jones,  198  (1680)  ; 
3  Keble,  604;  King  v.  Aldenham,  2  Levinz,  152;  3  Keble,  564,  566,  pi. 
84  (1675);  Anonymous,  i  Ventris,  182,  239,  278,  352;  Popham,  209;  I 
Rolle's  Reports,  217;  7  Modern,  10;  3  Keble,  489;  8  Edward  IV,  43; 
King  v.  Storke,  2  Keble,  800  (1679);  Brooke's  Abridgment  Traverse 
sans  do,  209;  i  East's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  389;  i  Hale's  Pleas  of  the 
Crown,  416;  i  Wms.  Saunders,  363. 

(h)  King  v.  Aldenham,  2  Levinz,  152,  sub  nom  Anonymous,  i 
Ventris,  278;  Freeman's  Reports,  4IQ-443  (1675).  The  reason  is  his 
being  absent  from  the  inquest  is  in  law  flight,  Anonymous,  Freeman's 
Reports,  419,  pi.  556  (1675).  Even  though  Coke  holds  contrary, 
Greton's  Case,  Freeman's  Reports,  433,  pi.  608.  But  see  Queen  v.  Clerk, 


EFFECT  OF  INQUEST  AND  RETURN  135 

But  many  of  the  cases  which  say  the  finding  of  felo 
de  se  is  traversable  say  that  of  fugam  fecit  is  not.  But 
even  fugam  fecit  has  been  held  traversable  (t)  and  yet  we 
find  the  proposition  that  flying  for  felony  found  before  the 
coroner  upon  indictment  is  not  traversable,  but  such  flying 
found  upon  indictment  before  the  commission  is  (fc). 

Where  a  felon  was  found  to  have  fled,  super  visum 
corporis,  he  forfeited  his  goods  even  if  he  was  found  not 
guilty  by  the  petit  jury  (/).  There  is  an  old  theory  that  if 
the  petit  jury  specify  that  the  accused  is  not  only  not 
guilty  but  that  he  made  no  flight  his  goods  would  not  be  for- 
feited (m).  Certainly  if  they  did  so  specify  there  was 
no  forfeiture  (n}.  The  rule  that  the  accused  should  forfeit 
even  though  found  not  guilty  seems  harsh  and  unreason- 
able. There  are  two  reasons  upon  which  this  harsh  rule 
was  based:  I.  because  the  inquest  was  not  traversable;  2. 
because  by  the  inquest  the  goods  became  lawfully  vested  in 
the  king  (0),  and  once  so  vested  could  not  be  divested.  It 


I  Salkeld,  377,  pi.  21  (1702),  King  v.  Parker,  2  Levinz,  140,  and  King 
v.  Ripley,  2  Shower,  199.  In  Skinner,  45  Hale,  C.  J.,  said  he  did  not 
approve  of  a  melius  inquirendum  where  felo  de  se  has  been  returned 
for  the  inquest  is  traversable  and  it  was  resolved  per  cur  that  an  in- 
quisition before  the  coroner  taken  super  visum  corporis  that  finds  that 
the  person  was  felo  de  se  and  non  compos  mentis  may  be  travesed,  but 
fugam  fecit  in  an  inquisition  before  the  coroner  cannot  be  traversed, 
Anonymous,  I  Ventris,  278  (1675). 

(»')  Jeryis  on  the  Law  of  Coroners,  282-4;  i  Saunders,  362;  2 
Burn's  Justices,  43  (Edition  of  1845). 

(k)  36  Henry  VI,  31;  Brooke's  Abridgment  Traverse,  383,  pi. 
229 ;  6  Viner's  Abridgment,  252,  and  see  also  6  Edward  IV,  43.  An  in- 
quisition on  a  melius  inquirendum  is  traversable,  but  not  super  visum 
corporis,  Carthew,  72,  73,  cited  in  King  v.  Heatherfall,  6  Viner's  Abridg- 
ment, 256,  for  the  justice  takes  the  presentment  of  felo  de  se,  when  the 
coroner  cannot. 

(/)  Dyer,  238;  Hale's  Summary,  171;  Jenkins  Century  Cases,  4,  c. 
9;  2  Blackstone's  Reports,  981,  and  see  Coke's  Entries,  356,  and  i  Rich- 
ard III,  6,  for,  says  Britton,  flight  throws  the  guilt  upon  him  so  he 
ought  to  forfeit;  Britton,  c.  14,  Sect.  2;  22  Assize,  76;  13  Henry  IV, 
13;  3  Edward  III,  33;  Foxley's  Case,  5  Coke's  Reports,  109  (1601)  ; 
Fitzherbert's  Abridgment  Title  Forfeiture,  29,  32,  351  i  Hale's  Pleas 
of  the  Crown,  363;  2  Ibid,  154;  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  Book 

II,  cap.  52. 

(m)  13  Edward  IV,  3b;  14  Henry  VII,  2b;  they  must  find  by  whom 
the  deceased  was  killed  "which  serves  as  an  indictment  against  an- 
other person,"  13  Edward  IV,  3b. 

(n)  In  Petys  Mss.  Fragment,  a  case  in  the  Exchequer,  3  Edward 

III,  is  recited  to  this  effect. 

(o)  13  Henry  IV,  13  pi.  6;  Foxley's  Case,  5  Coke's  Reports,  109 
(1601) ;  Anonymous,  Dyer,  238,  pi.  36  (1565) ;  2  Coke's  Institutes,  147; 
3  Keble,  564;  2  Levinz,  141. 


136    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

has  been  argued  that  the  finding  of  fugam  fecit  should 
cause  a  forfeiture  of  the  goods  even  though  the  petit  jury 
found  there  was  no  flight  and  acquitted  the  prisoner,  the 
best  reason  seeming  to  be  that  the  first  finding  was  of  great- 
est force  and  the  flying  should  not  have  been  given  in  charge 
of  the  jury  upon  arraignment  (/>).  In  opposition  to  this 
doctrine  there  is  a  record  abstracted  in  Pety's  MSS.  of  a 
presentment  of  fugam  fecit  by  the  coroner  and  of  a  for- 
feiture and  seizure  in  a  case  of  an  accessory  before  the 
fact  to  murder  of  which,  upon  arraignment,  he  was  ac- 
quitted, and  the  jury  having  found  that  he  did  not  fly,  res- 
titution was  awarded  (<j).  But  Hawkins  argues  with  great 
force  that  where  the  jury  acquit  whether  they  find  he  did 
not  fly  or  not  restitution  should  be  made  (r).  We  cannot 
but  see  the  force  of  this  argument.  The  old  rule  is  both 
harsh  and  unreasonable,  both  the  grounds  upon  which  it 
rests  are  fallacious  for  the  inquest  has  been  held  travers- 
able  and  the  maxim  that  the  king  can  do  no  wrong  ought 
to  be  misapplied  to  prevent  a  forfeiture  of  an  innocent 
man's  goods  (rr).  Besides  it  is  hard  to  see  upon  what 
resonable  ground  an  innocent  man  can  be  held  to  have  for- 
feited his  goods. 

The  return  of  outlawry  was  not  conclusive  (s).  The 
coroner's  record  of  abjuration  or  prison  breach  or  con- 
fession by  an  approver  was  of  no  weight  but  to  estop  the 
person  making  it  from  traversing  it  or  showing  he  made  it 
under  duress  (t),  and  so  if  the  party  plead  he  is  not  the  same 
party  who  made  the  abjuration,  etc.  the  record  was  conclu- 
sive («).  But  the  judge  might  take  an  inquiry  of  the  people 

(/»)  Anonymous,  Dyer,  238,  pi.  36  (1565);  Fitzherbert's  Abridg- 
ment Title  Forfeiture,  32;  Brooke's  Abridgment  Title  Coroners,  132, 
Foxley's  Case,  5  Coke's  Reports,  lopb  (1601). 

(q)  Umfreville's  Lex  Coronatoris,  73-74. 

(r)  2  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c.  9,  Sect.  54. 

(rr)  For  an  ancient  and  learned  discussion  of  this  point  see  ap- 
pendix. 

(j)  Proctor's  Case,  2  Dyer,  222b  (1563)  ;  i  Rolle's  Reports,  217. 

(/)  Kale's  Summary,  171;  Fitzherbert's  Abridgment  Title  Coro- 
nets, 118,  124,  134,  169;  Britton,  c.  i,  Sect.  36;  Staundeford's  Plea  of  the 
Crown,  52;  25  Edward  III,  42,  pi.  35;  12  Assize,  19,  29;  9  Coke's  Re- 
ports, 3ib. 

(H)  Fitzherbert's  Abridgment  Title  Coroners  124;  Staundeford's 
Pleas  of  the  Crown,  52;  Britton,  c  i,  Sect.  36. 


EFFECT  OF  INQUEST  AND  RETURN  137 

living  next,  whether  this  be  so  or  not  (z/).  It  is  said  that 
if  the  coroner  found  murder  committed  in  a  certain  town 
and  fugam  fecit,  the  township  had  no  right  to  traverse  the 
flight,  for  it  only  affects  the  amercement  of  the  township 
and  de  minimis  non  curat  lex  (w). 

As  has  already  been  indicated,  the  investigation  of  the 
sheriff,  justices  or  commissioners  on  a  melius  inquirendum 
was  beyond  doubt  traversable  (*). 

Sect.  59.  We  now  come  to  the  effect  of  the  inquest 
as  evidence.  We  are  told  (y)  that  in  England  only  the 
testimony  given  at  the  inquest  is  evidence  in  civil  cases,  not 
the  verdict.  But  this  is  doubtful.  In  King  v,  Brunswick 
(2)  the  depositions  of  two  witnesses  since  dead  were  read  in 
evidence,  the  court  saying  "this  is  good  evidence  of  murder 
or  any  other  crime."  In  Lord  Morley's  case  (a)  it  was  re- 
solved that  if  a  witness  examined  before  the  coroner  be 
dead  or  unable  to  travel  his  deposition  may  be  read,  the 
coroner  first  making  oath  that  such  examinations  are  the 
same  which  he  took  upon  oath  and  this  is  so  though  the 
defendant  were  absent  at  the  inquest  and  had  at  best  no 
opportunity  to  cross-examine  (b).  There  are  certain  requi- 
sites, however,  to  the  admission  of  such  depositions.  "If 


(v)  Fitzherbert's  Abridgment  Title  Coroners,  118,  124,  169;  12 
Assize,  29;  Brooke's  Abridgment  Title  Coroners,  75;  2  Hawkins's  Pleas 
of  the  Crown,  c  9,  Sect.  52. 

(w)  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  34,  35,  51,  183;  2  Haw- 
kins's Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c  9,  Sect.  53.  The  amercement  was  not 
what  was  held  de  minimis,  however. 


5i 

Pleas  of  the  Crown,  414,  and  Greve's  Case  in  1656,  Ibid;  2  Kale's  Pleas 
of  the  Crown,  59,  even  though  the  finding  be  fugam  fecit,  47  Edward 
III,  26 ;  i  Kale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  414. 

(y)  3  Encyclopedia  of  Evidence,  574,  citing  9  Carrington  &  Payne, 
601 ;  38  English  Common  Law,  245. 

(2)  2  Keb.,  19;  sub  nom  Brunswick's  Case,  i  Levinz,  180  (1666). 
In  Rex  v.  Paine,  i  Lord  Raymond,  729,  8.  c.,  I  Salkeld,  281  (1692)  a 
deposition  before  a  justice  of  the  peace  by  a  deponent  since  dead  was 
not  received  under  the  statute  of  I  and  2  Philip  and  Mary,  Chapter 
13,  but  this  decision  is  limited  to  the  particular  case  of  felony,  notes  2 
and  3  Philip  and  Mary,  c.  10,  extends  the  former  act  to  cases  where 
the  prisoner  is  committed. 

(a)  3  State  Trials,  941 ;  Keyl,  56. 

(fe)  Whether  this  means  an  opportunity  to  cross-examine  doei 
not  appear,  7  State  Trials,  421. 


138    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

the  court  be  satisfied  the  witness  is  absent  at  the  procure- 
ment of  the  prisoner  the  deposition  may  be  read,  but  if  he 
be  absent  from  the  trial  of  his  own  accord,  and  all  efforts 
are  used  to  find  him  and  they  fail,  still  his  deposition  cannot 
be  read  in  evidence"  (c). 


(c )  3  State  Trials,  941 ;  7  State  Trials,  421 ;  Keyl.,  56. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE    MINISTERIAL   DUTIES    OF    THE    CORONER. 

Sect.  60.  The  chief  ministerial  duty  that  the  coroner 
had  to  perform  in  England  was  as  substitute  to  the  sheriff 
(a).  Process  was  awarded  to  the  coroner  from  very  early 
times  (&).  "When  exception  can  be  taken  to  the  sheriff 
for  suspicion  of  partiality  [as  where  he  is  interested  in  the 
suit  (c)  or  kindred  to  either  plaintiff  or  defendant]  (rf) 
the  process  must  then  be  awarded  to  the  coroner  instead  of 
to  the  sheriff  for  execution  of  the  king's  writs"  (e). 
In  all  proceedings  against  the  sheriff  process  should  be 
awarded  to  the  coroner  (/).  In  Weston  v.  Coulson  (g) 
a  motion  was  made  to  set  aside  the  proceedings  because  the 
latitat  against  the  sheriff  was  directed  to  himself  and  not 
to  the  coroner.  It  was  argued  that  the  latitat  was  merely 
process  (h)  and  the  sheriff  might  serve  it  (»)  as  well  as 
another  and  that  it  is  not  like  a  fieri  or  venire  where  his 
partiality  might  be  of  importance,  but  the  court  held  it 
was  irregular  and  set  aside  the  proceedings.  If  the  array 
be  quashed  for  partiality  on  the  part  of  the  sheriff  the 
venire  was  then  directed  to  the  coroner  (£),  but  it  never 
went  to  the  coroner  except  by  award  of  the  court  upon 
some  special  incapacity  of  the  sheriff  challenged  and  sug- 


(0)  4  Coke's   Institutes,   271 ;    i    Blackstone's   Commentaries,  349. 
It  is  not  my  purpose  to  consider  the  duties  of  sheriff.    The  coroner 
when  acting  as  his  substitute  is  under  the  same  rules  of  law  as  he, 
but  those  rules  are  the  subject  of  a  work  on  sheriffs. 

(&)  Plowden,  73. 

(c)  Weston  v.  Coulson,  i  Wm.  Blackstone's  Reports,  506  (1763)  ', 
27  Assize,  47;  Staundeford's   Pleas  of  the  Crown,  64;   Kale's   Sum- 
mary, 171. 

(d)  Comyns'  Digest  Title  Officer,  G.  13. 

(e)  i  Blackstone's  Commentaries,  349.  But  only  at  the  petition  of 
the  parties,  22  Henry  VI,  4ib. 

(/)  7  Henry  VI,  33  a,  36  a  "per  Newton  &  mm  negatum." 
(g)  i  Wm.  Blackstone's  Reports,  506  (1763)- 
(h)  As  distinguished  from  execution. 

(1)  How  he  was  to  serve  himself  does  not  appear. 
(k)  Comyns  Digest  Title  Officer,  G.  13. 

(/)   Skinner,   102.    See  Umfreville's  Lex  Coronatoris,  235. 
(m)  Brooke's  Abridgment  Title   Officer,  pi.  43;  43  Edward   III, 
26,  and  the  coroner  shall  attach  the  sheriff,  Ibid. 

(139) 


gested  upon  the  roll  and  admitted  or  not  denied  by  the  par- 
ties. Upon  this  surmise  by  assent  of  the  parties  the  entry 
of  the  award  of  the  venire  is  of  course  to  the  coroners  (/). 
If  the  sheriff  did  not  serve  in  replevin  at  the  pluries  process 
issued  to  the  coroner  (m). 

In  this  connection  it  is  to  be  noted  that  the  coroner 
acted  as  substitute  for  the  sheriff  and  not  instead  of  the 
sheriff  and  therefore  if  the  sheriff  was  dead  or  amoved  (w), 
or  if  for  any  reason  there  was  no  sheriff  (0)  the  coroner 
could  not  act.  But  the  sheriff  must  be  absolutely  an  im- 
proper person  before  process  could  be  awarded  to  the 
coroner  (/>) ;  therefore,  if  there  were  two  sheriffs  in  the 
county,  and  one  was  improper,  process  must  be  awarded 
to  the  other  (q). 

Process  was  awarded  to  all  the  coroners  as  we  shall  see 
later,  yet  if  there  be  but  one  coroner  in  the  county  process 
was  directed  to  him  alone  (r).  If  one  of  the  coroners 
was  challenger  then  the  process  must  be  awarded  to  the 
others  (s).  If  the  coroners  were  all  interested  then  pro- 
cess went  to  elisors  appointed  by  the  court  (£)•  In  Fort- 
esque's  time  these  elisors  were  either  two  clerks  of  the  court 
or  others  of  the  county  who  in  the  presence  of  the  court 
upon  their  oath  (M)  aver  to  make  an  indifferent  panel  (v). 
The  award  to  elisors  was  unusual.  Where  the  sheriffs  and 


(n)  22  Henry  VI,  4ib.    See  4  Modern,  65. 

(0)  King  v.  Warrington,  i  Salkeld,  152  pi.  2  (1692). 

(p)  Ibid. 

(q)  Salkeld,  152;  12  Modern,  22;'  i  Shower,  327;  2  Shower,  262, 
286;  Lilly's  Entries,  483. 

(r)  Jenkins,  85,  pi.  65. 

O)  King  v.  Warrington,  i  Salkeld,  152,  pi.  2  (1692)  in  the  reign 
of  Queen  Ann  it  appeared  that  the  two  coroners  were  renters  of  the 
sheriff  and  he  was  interested  and  this  was  specially  entered  on  the 
roll  and  a  special  venire  was  prayed  to  the  other  two  coroners  nam- 
ing them  and  was  awarded  with  a  clause  forbidding  the  two  interested 
ones  from  intromitting  Ms.  cited  in  Umfreville's  Lex  Coronatoris,  227. 
See  i  Shower,  328-9;  2  Shower,  286. 

(<)  2  Wm.  Blackstone's  Reports,  911;  Umfreville's  Lex  Corona- 
tons,  237,  process,  but  not  execution  is  awarded  to  elisors.  Ibid,  241, 
two  elisors  at  least  for  a  venire,  a  venire  awarded  to  one  elisor  is 
not  good,  see  2  Henry,  VI,  12;  Dyer,  367.  It  is  error  even  after 
verdict  (1653)  C.  B.  Cory's  Notes,  Umfreville's  Lex  Coronatoris,  242. 

(M)  Quaere,  Umfreville's  Lex  Coronatoris,  238. 

(v)  Fortesque,  ch.  XXV. 


MINISTERIAL  DUTIES  OF  THE  CORONER  141 

coroners  of  particular  liberties  had  been  challenged  the 
process  was  awarded  to  the  county  officer  («;).  In  cities 
the  rule  was  but  little  different  from  what  it  was  in  the 
country.  If  a  sheriff  of  a  city  in  a  county  were  in  con- 
tempt the  attachment  went  to  the  coroner,  not  to  the  mayor 
or  chief  officer  of  the  corporation  in  such  city  or  town  and 
if  the  offender  were  out  of  office  the  attachment  had  to  be 
directed  to  the  new  sheriff  (.*•). 

While  process  and  execution  had  long  been  awarded  to 
the  coroner  the  original  is  supposed  to  have  been  first 
granted  to  the  coroners  in  6  Edv/ard  VI  (y)  where  the 
original  writ  of  assize  was  awarded  to  and  executed  by 
five  out  of  six  coroners,  one  having  been  challenged  on  ac- 
count of  consanguinity  to  one  of  the  defendants,  oyer  was 
craved  of  the  writ  and  after  argument  on  demurrer  a  re- 
spondeat  ouster  was  awarded  (#).  Yet  we  find  as  early 
as  2  Henry  VI  (a)  an  original  in  trespass  was  awarded  to 
the  coroners  against  the  sheriff  and  two  others.  Again  in 
1 8  Edward  IV  (&)  and  14  Henry  VII  (c)  originals  seem 
to  have  been  awarded  to  the  coroners. 

When  the  original  had  been  awarded  to  the  coroner 
all  subsequent  writs  had  to  be  so  awarded  (d)  for  once  pro- 
cess had  been  issued  to  the  coroner  the  sheriff  could  not 
intromit  (e},  for  as  the  old  books  say,  he  was  no  longer 
an  officer  in  that  case  (/).  When  elisors  were  once 


(w)  Umfreville's  Lex  Coronatoris,  239. 
(x)  Anonymous,  2  Ventris,  216  (1620). 
(y)  1553  Umfreville's  Lex  Coronatoris,  233. 
(z)  Plowden,  73;  see  Jervis  on  the  Law  of  Coroners,  54. 
(a)  1424,  2  Henry  VI,  123. 
(&)  14/9,  18  Edward  IV,  7b. 
(c)  1499,  14  Henry  VII,  3ib. 

(rf)  Even  though  the  sheriff  have  been  found  not  guilty,  2  Henry 
VI,  i2a,  and  see  18  Edward  IV,  7b  and  14  Henry  VII,  3ib. 

(*j  Skinner,  102;  43  Edward  III,  26,  et  per  Lee,  C  J.,  Palmer, 
370  (1624)  ;  Morgan  v.  Wye,  Croke's  Elizabeth,  574  (1594)  ',  Corne  v. 
Pastow,  Yelverton  15,  s.  c.;  Croke's  Elizabeth,  894  (1602).  See 
Moore,  356;  s.  c;  5  Coke's  Reports,  36;  Sairbl  v.  Candith,  Yelverton, 
214  (1612);  Gregory  v.  Booker,  Croke's  Elizabeth,  586  (1598). 

(/)  Corne  v.  Pastow,  Yelverton,  15,  s.  c.;  Croke's  Elizabeth,  894 


142    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

appointed  neither  the  sheriff  nor  the  coroner  could  introntit 

(f). 

Even  if  the  old  sheriff  died  or  were  removed  and  a 

new  sheriff  appointed  who  was  not  exceptionable  process 
must  go  to  the  coroner  (h),  and  to  issue  process  to  the 
new  sheriff  was  deemed  error  (t)  ;  nor  was  it  helped  after 
verdict  by  the  statute  of  jeo fails  (&),  but  process  wrongly 
directed  to  the  coroner  was  so  helped  (/). 

As  we  have  seen  the  coroner  was  substitute  for  the 
sheriff  and  as  such  might  if  necessary  call  in  the  posse 
comitatus  (w). 

We  have  observed  that  in  almost  all  counties  there 
was  more  than  one  coroner  and  we  have  also  observed  that 
one  coroner  might  sit  to  hold  an  inquest  (n).  Two  cor- 
oners ought  to  be  judges  of  redesseisin,  one  served  to  pro- 
nounce an  outlawry  but  the  entry  ought  to  be  made  in  the 
name  of  all  and  process  should  be  directed  to  all  (o)  for 
it  took  all  the  coroners  to  do  a  ministerial  act  (/>).  It  may 
be  legend  that  it  takes  nine  tailors  to  make  a  man,  but  it 
is  certain  that  it  took  all  the  coroners  in  the  county  to 
make  one  officer  (g).  As  the  coroners  were  one  officer 
the  act  of  one  was  sometimes  considered  the  act  of  all  for 


(0)  15  Edward  IV,  24;  18  Edward  IV,  8. 

(h)  Comyns  Digest  Title  Officer,  G.  13;  Moore,  356-422. 

(•)  Moore,  356. 

(£)  32  Henry  VIII,  c  30;  see  Moore,  356. 

(/)  Dyer,  367^  the  Staute  of  33  Henry  VIII,  c  70,  acts  in  the 
same  way. 

(m)  Hobart,  85;  Jervis  on  Coroners,  53. 

(n)  See  ante,  Sects.  45,  46,  47,  48,  49. 

(o)  Jenkins,  85,  pi.  65,  where  it  is  said  all  should  serve  the  writ 
and  see  14  Henry  IV,  34,  to  the  same  effect.  But  if  there  is  but  one 
coroner  in  the  county  he  will  do,  Ibid.  Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the 
Crown,  f  533. 

(p)  14  Henry  IV,  34;  Jenkins,  85.  pi.  65;  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the 
Crown,  56. 

(q)  3  Levinz,  309;  see  i  Modern,  98;  in  Rex  v.  Dolby,  cited  Um- 
frevilles  Lex  Coronatoris,  144,  the  coroners  were  directed  to  return  a 
special  jury  which  they  did,  but  the  tales  being  required  it  was  returned 
by  one  coroner  who  happened  to  be  in  court.  It  was  objected  that  the 
return  must  be  by  all,  the'  act  of  one  coroner  being  insufficient  where 
all  were  empowered  to  act  ministerially  and  the  validity  of  the  objec- 
tion was  admitted.  See  Jervis  on  Coroners,  55;  Staundeford's  Pleas 
of  the  Crown,  f  533,  and  Anonymous,  Comberback,  435.  If  there  are 
four  coroners  in  a  county  three  cannot  return  the  writ,  31  Assize  20. 


MINISTERIAL  DUTIES  OF  THE  CORONER  143 

the  purpose  of  making  them  liable  for  misfeasance  (r). 
They  were  all  liable  for  an  escape  (s)>  a  false  return  (f), 
or  an  attachment  (u),  and  if  one  was  guilty  of  malprac- 
tice ministerially  the  court  exercised  summary  jurisdiction 
over  them  all  (77).  But  they  were  not  responsible  criminally 
unless  the  act  or  omission  were  their  own  or  by  them  per- 
mitted («/).  While  all  the  coroners  were  required  to  act 
ministerially  the  rule  had  its  limitations;  thus  one  coroner 
or  the  servant  (deputy)  of  one  coroner — for  this  purpose 
the  coroner  might  appoint  a  deputy  without  deed  (*) — had 
authority  to  make  an  arrest  but  the  return  was  made  by 
all  (y)  or  joined  in  by  all  (#).  So  if  there  were  but  two 
coroners  in  a  county  and  process  issued  to  them  and  one 
die  the  other  could  not  return  the  writ  until  another  cor- 
oner has  been  elected,  but  if  there  were  more  than  two  and 
one  die  the  remaining  coroners  could  return  the  writ  so 
they  were  plural  (a).  An  arrest  was  made  in  the  name  of 
all  (b).  If  one  of  the  coroners  were  challenged  the  others 
must  act  (c)  ;  if  therefore  the  writ  be  directed  to  the  cor- 


(r)  I  Modern,  98;  2  Modern,  23;  Naylor's  Case,  Freeman,  191; 
Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  533. 

(s)  I  Modern,  98;  6  Modern,  37,  even  though  Holt  did  say  "tis 
mischievous,"  Anonymous,  Comberback,  435 ;  Naylor's  Case,  Freeman, 
191-2,  pi.  195,  and  see  Taylor  v.  Clark,  3  Levinz,  399  (1695)  A  &  B 
were  coroners,  C  issued  a  writ  to  take  the  sheriff  which  B  did  and  after- 
wards permitted  an  escape.  A  had  no  notice.  C  sued  them  both.  Holt 
C.  J.  on  the  trial  said  that  the  two  coroners  made  one  officer  and  the 
act  being  a  ministerial  one  was  the  act  of  both  and  directed  a  verdict 
for  the  plaintiff,  but  because  of  the  hardship  signed  a  bill  of  excep- 
tions. On  the  argument,  Treby  C.  J.  inclined  for  the  plaintiff  and 
Powell  J.  for  the  defendant  and  Rookby  J.  doubted. 

(0  Naylor's  Case,  Freeman,  191-2  pi.  195. 

(M)  2  Bl.,  911. 

(v)  8  Modern,  192. 

(w)  8  Modern,  193;  Lord  Raymond,  1574. 

Or)  Clecott  v.  Dennys,  Croke's  Elizabeth,  67  (1588). 

(y)  Jenkins,  85,  pi.  65 ;  14  Henry  IV,  34b,  per  Hank,  J. ;  39  Henry 
VI,  41,  2  Kale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  56;  Rich  v.  Ployer,  2  Shower,  286, 
pi.  283  (1683). 

(*)  4  Edward  IV,  43;  Fitzherbert's  Natura  Brevium,  163;  14 
Henry  IV,  34,  per  Hank,  J. ;  39  Henry  VI,  41. 

(o)  14  Henry  IV,  353;  31  Assize,  20;  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown, 
56. 

(&)  Jenkins,  85,  pi.  65,  so  where  the  coroner  made  the  return  in 
his  name  alone  it  was  held  bad,  but  the  rescuers  he  returned  were  taken 
on  attachment  and  sent  to  the  fleet,  39  Henry  VI,  40. 

(c)  Queen  v.  Warrington,  I  Salkeld,  152,  pi.  2. 


144    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

oners  and  one  die,  the  other  coroners,  if  there  be  more  than 
one,  can  serve  it ;  but  where  there  are  only  two  the  survivor 
cannot  act  for  he  is  not  "the  coroners"  (rf),  and  the  same 
rule  applies  where  there  are  more  than  two  and  all  but 
one  die  (e ). 

The  ministerial  acts  of  a  coroner  may  be  executed  on 
Sunday,  for,  says  Umfreville  (/),  otherwise  they  may 
never  be  executed,  yet  in  Hoyle  v.  Lord  Cornwallis  (g),  it 
was  determined  that  the  execution  of  a  writ  of  inquiry  on 
Sunday  is  void. 


(rf)  Fitzherbert's  Natura  Brevium,  162-163  N. ;  14  Henry  IV,  39. 

(e)  Ibid. 

(/)  Lex  Coronatoris,  177. 

(y)  I  Strange,  387. 


PART  II. 

The  Office  and  Duties  of  Coroners  in  Pennsylvania, 
Viewed  in  the  Light  of  Their  Origin. 

CHAPTER  I. 

THE   EARLY   HISTORY   OF    CORONERS   IN    PENNSYLVANIA. 

Sect.  61.  We  have  seen  the  rise  and  development  of 
the  office  of  coroner  in  England,  down  to  the  settlement  of 
Pennsylvania,  and  looked  with  considerable  care  into  the 
various  powers  and  duties  which  then  and  there  attached  to 
the  office.  We  are  now  to  trace  the  transition  of  the  insti- 
tution across  the  ocean.  We  are  told  that  the  common  law 
of  Pennsylvania  is  that  of  England  modified  to  such  extent 
as  the  changed  conditions  of  the  colonists  rendered  requi- 
site. The  reason  for  this  is  obvious.  The  settlers  in  Penn's 
territory  brought  with  them  the  common  law  of  England 
as  part  of  their  heritage,  but  so  utterly  different  were  the 
conditions  they  found  here  that  many  parts  of  the  common 
law  were  never  called  into  operation  while  others  were 
utterly  impossible  of  enforcement.  The  early  history  of 
the  colony  seems  to  show  that  the  good  Friends  who  came 
to  America  had  but  little  need  of  the  law.  They  seem  to 
have  existed  wholly  without  such  minor  details  as  courts, 
sheriffs,  coroners,  constables  and  bailiffs  for  a  surprising 
length  of  time. 

From  the  absence  of  law  which  existed  at  the  first 
settlement  of  the  country  the  office  of  coroner  emerges 
full  fledged,  with  certain  very  definite  alterations.  These 
alterations  we  shall  have  occasion  to  notice  during  the 
course  of  our  consideration  of  the  office  and  its  duties  in 
Pennsylvania,  but  certain  of  them  remain  to  be  observed 
before  we  take  up  the  further  consideration  of  the  powers 
and  duties  of  the  coroner  today. 

One  of  the  changes  which  was  understood  from  the 
beginning  found  legislative  expression  in  the  Act  of  1705 

(MS) 


146    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

(a),  namely,  that  no  coroner  should  take  office  until  he  had 
taken  and  subscribed  a  declaration  of  his  Christian  belief, 
and  an  affirmation  for  the  due  execution  of  his  office. 

The  origin  of  the  principal  change  which  was  made 
remains,  however,  in  more  or  less  obscurity.  As  we  have 
already  seen  (b)  it  was  the  custom  in  England  to  elect  four 
or  more  coroners  in  each  county.  When  the  little  colony 
on  the  Delaware  began  to  assume  a  definite  shape  and  to 
need  a  more  complete  government  it  was  divided  into 
three  counties,  Philadelphia,  Chester  and  Bucks.  So  few 
were  the  inhabitants  at  this  time  that  they  were  all  (being 
freemen)  made  members  of  the  general  assembly.  Such 
being  the  case  it  would  have  been  absurd  to  appoint  twelve 
coroners.  Accordingly,  in  the  Frame  of  Government  of 
1682  (c)  it  was  provided  (rf)  that  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
it  would  be  burthensome  to  put  the  people  to  frequent  elec- 
tions the  Proprietary  would  appoint  county  officers  (e)  to 
hold  office  so  long  as  they  should  well  behave  and  from  and 
after  their  death  or  removal  from  office  the  people  should 
elect  their  successors ;  that  is  to  say,  they  should  elect  double 
the  number  of  persons  who  were  to  serve  (/),  and  should 
present  them  to  the  governor  who  should  "nominate  and 
commissionate"  one  to  serve  in  each  office.  Following  out 
this  idea,  Penn,  on  September  16,  1685,  appointed  Robert 
Hall  coroner  of  the  county  of  Bucks  (#),  during  the  same 
year  James  Kemmerly  and  Griffith  Owen  were  appointed 
coroners  of  the  counties  of  Chester  and  Philadelphia  re- 
spectively (h).  Of  course  when  their  successors  were 
elected  but  one  coroner  was  appointed  by  the  governor 
for  each  county  and  so  it  has  remained  to  the  present  day 

(a)  Act    of    January    12,    1705-6,    Chapter    CLXI,    2    Statutes    at 
Large,  272. 

(b)  Ante,  Sect.  23. 

(c)  Poore's  Federal  and  State  Constitutions,  page  1522. 

(d)  Article  XVIII. 

(e)  "Sheriffs  Coroners,"  etc.    Coroners'  fees  were  carefully  regu- 
lated by  a  statute  passed  that  year  (1682)  at  Upland,  but  there  seems 
to  have  been  no  coroner  to  receive  the  fees,  see  Chapter  XII,  Post. 

(/)  Article  XVII. 
(g)  Pennsylvania  Marriages,  742. 

(h)  Pennsylvania  Marriages,  674-697,  it  is  worthy  of  note,  how- 
ever, that  sheriffs  were  appointed  for  all  the  counties  in  1682. 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  CORONERS  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  147 

(t).  The  frame  of  the  government  of  1696  passes  over  all 
such  minor  details  as  coroners,  sheriffs  or  county  treas- 
urers except  as  to  the  oath  they  are  to  take.  The  Charter  of 
Privileges  of  1701  which  remained  in  force  until  the  Revo- 
lution provides  (&)  :  "That  the  freemen  in  each  respective 
county  at  the  time  and  place  of  meeting  for  electing  their 
representatives  to  serve  in  assembly  may  as  often  as  there 
shall  be  occasion  chuse  a  double  number  of  persons  to  present 
to  the  governor  for  sheriffs  and  coroners  to  serve  for  three 
years  if  they  so  long  behave  themselves  well,  out  of  which 
respective  elections  and  presentments  the  governor  shall 
nominate  and  commissionate  one  for  each  of  the  said  offices 
the  third  day  after  such  presentment  or  else  the  first  named 
in  such  presentment  for  each  office  as  aforesaid  shall  stand 
and  serve  in  that  office  for  the  time  before  respectively 
limited  and  in  case  of  death  or  default  such  vacancies  shall 
be  supplied  by  the  governor  to  serve  to  the  end  of  the 
said  term,"  and  in  case  of  default  in  electing  succes- 
sors the  officers  in  office  shall  hold  over  until  successors 
are  duly  elected  and  qualified.  Section  i  of  the  Act  of  Jan- 
uary 12,  1705-6  (/)  provided  that  the  term  should  be  but 


(»)  Other  evidence  of  the  fact  that  there  has  always  been  but 
one  coroner  in  each  county  is  found  in  the  act  of  1705,  Chapter  CLXL 
Sect.  2,  2  Statutes  at  Large,  275,  allowed  to  become  a  law  by  lapse  of 
time,  which  provides  that  the  coroner  of  the  County  of  Philadelphia, 
shall  also  be  the  coroner  for  the  City  of  Philadelphia.  So,  the  act  of 
27  January  1749-50,  5  Statutes  at  Large,  92,  confirmed  by  King  in  Coun- 
cil, May  13,  1751,  enacted  that  until  the  people  of  the  newly  erected 
County  of  Cumberland  should  elect  a  coroner,  the  coroner  of  Lancaster 
should  act  for  them  and  see  similar  acts  for  Berks,  n  March,  1752, 
Sect.  13,  5  Statutes  at  Large,  138,  Northampton,  n,  March,  1752,  Sect. 
13,  5  Statutes  at  Large,  145,  Washington,  28  March,  1781,  10  Statutes  at 
Large,  278,  the  act  of  3  Sept'.,  1776,  Sect.  7,  9  Statutes  at  Large,  17, 
bridges  the  gulf  between  the  colonial  and  state  governments  by  con- 
tinuing the  county  officers  in  office  until  new  elections  or  appoint- 
ments were  had. 

(k)  Article  III,  Poore's  Federal  and  State  Constitutions,  page 
1538. 

(/)  Chapter  CLXI,  2  Statutes  at  Large,  272;  this  act  was  somewhat 
modified  by  Sect.  I,  of  the  Act  of  August  24,  1717,  which  was  also 
allowed  to  become  a  law  by  lapse  of  time  and  by  section  2,  of  the  Act 
of  March  20,  1724-5,  4  Statutes  at  Large,  19-20.  It  was  repealed  by 
the  Act  of  1785,  but  in  the  meantime  the  constitution  of  1776  had 
practically  re-enacted  this  law  ipsa  verba,  see  supra.  By  the  Act 
of  II  March,  1752,  confirmed  by  the  King.  May  10,  1753,  5  Statutes  at 
Large,  159,  it  was  made  a  penal  offence  for  a  coroner  or  candidate  to 
give  strong  liquor  for  a  vote  for  himself  and  the  person  so  offending 
to  be  incapable  of  holding  office  for  one  year  thereafter. 


148    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

one  year.  This  act  was  allowed  to  become  a  law  by  lapse  of 
time  in  accordance  with  the  proprietary  charter  having  been 
considered  by  the  Queen  in  Council  on  October  24,  1709, 
and  not  acted  upon.  In  substance  it  remained  in  force  until 
the  enactment  of  the  constitution  of  1838  (m). 

The  county  coroner  is  the  only  kind  of  coroner  whose 
office  was  found  necessary  in  Pennsylvania.  His  jurisdic- 
tion included  the  whole  ground  covered  by  all  different 
kinds  of  coroners  in  England.  Of  this  jurisdiction  we  shall 
speak  later. 


(m)  The  constitution  of  1776,  Sect.  31  Provided  that  "sheriffs 
and  coroners  shall  be  elected  annually  in  each  city  and  county  by  the 
freeman  that  is  to  say,  two  persons  for  each  office  one  of  whom  for 
each  is  to  be  commissioned  by  the  President  in  Council."  The  Con- 
stitution of  1790,  Art.  6,  Sect,  i,  provided  "sheriffs  and  coroners  shall  be 
.it  the  times  and  places  of  election  of  representative  be  chosen  by  the 
citizens  of  each  county.  Two  persons  shall  be  chosen  for  each  office 
one  of  whom  for  each  respectively  shall  be  appointed  by  the  Governor.' 


CHAPTER  II. 

ELECTION  AND   QUALIFICATIONS  OF   CORONERS  AND  VACAN- 
CIES IN  THE  OFFICE. 

Election. 

Sect.  62.  We  have  now  traced  the  history  of  the  elec- 
tion of  the  coroner  in  Pennsylcania  through  the  early  stages 
of  its  development.  The  Constitution  of  1838  (a)  provides 
(6)  "sheriffs  and  coroners  shall  at  the  times  and  places  of 
election  of  representatives  be  chosen  by  the  citizens  of  each 
county.  One  person  shall  be  chosen  for  each  office  who  shall 
be  commissioned  by  the  governor." 

Under  the  constitution  of  1874,  coroners  are  denom- 
inated county  officers  and  are  elected  as  such  at  the  general 
election  (c).  In  this  way  everything  unusual  or  extraor- 
dinary in  the  election  of  the  coroner  has  ceased  to  exist. 
It  would  therefore  not  be  profitable  to  inquire  how 
coroners  are  elected.  The  number  of  coroners  is  not 
specified  in  the  constitution  of  1874,  and  as  that  document 
overturns  the  previous  government  (d)  it  is  difficult  to  see 
upon  what  ground  one  coroner  is  chosen  unless  it  be  under 
section  2  of  the  schedule  (e}.  Nevertheless  one  coroner 
only  is  elected  in  each  county  for  a  term  of  four  years  (ee). 

Oath. 

Sect.  63.  No  qualification  as  to  degree  or  property 
ever  seems  to  have  been  required  of  the  coroner  in  Pennsyl- 
vania, but  quite  different  qualifications  have  long  been  en- 
forced. The  coroner  is  still  sworn  (or  affirmed)  to  the 
faithful  performance  of  his  duties,  but  in  place  of  the  qual- 
ification of  knighthood  or  lands  a  bond  is  now  requisite. 
Aside  from  these  qualifications  we  may  assume  that  if  the 


(a)  Poores  Federal  and  State  Constitutions,  p.  1557- 

(&)  Article  VI. 

(c)  Article  XIV,  Sects,  i  and  2;  Purdon's  Digest  (i3th  Ed.) 
202-3. 

(rf)  Wells  v.  Bain,  75,  Pa.  St.  39  (1874) ',  Wood's  Appeal,  75  Pa. 
St.  59  (1874)- 

(<?)  Purdon's  Digest  (i3th  Ed.)  218. 

(ee)  The  amendments  to  the  state  constitution  enacted  in  1909, 
lengthened  the  coroner's  term  from  three  to  four  years  (See  Amend- 
ment to  Art.  XIV,  Sect.  2).  5  Purdon's  Digest  5^97  (Uth  Edition). 

(149) 


150    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

coroner  so  far  engage  in  other  business  (/)  that  he  cannot 
have  leisure  enough  to  attend  to  his  duties  as  coroner,  he 
might  be  impeached.  If  he  be  chosen  to  some  other  public 
office,  the  constitution  prevents  his  retaining  that  of  coro- 
ner. But  if  the  coroner  should  refuse  under  any  of  these 
circumstances  to  give  up  the  office,  it  seems  the  remedy 
would  be  by  impeachment  and  not  by  writ  de  coronatore 
exonerando. 

In  early  colonial  times  the  coroner  was  required  to 
make  a  declaration  of  his  Christian  belief  (#),  but  this  has 
long  since  been  done  away  with.  Certainly  since  the  Act 
of  January  12,  1705-6,  he  has  been  obliged  to  take  an  oath 
or  affirmation  for  the  due  execution  of  his  office  (h},  and  in 
the  absence  of  such  statutes  he  would  be  so  obliged  by  the 
common  law  of  this  Commonwealth. 

Bond. 

Sect.  64.  This  qualification  has  been  substituted  for 
that  of  ownership  of  land.  Every  coroner  is  required  to 
enter  into  a  recognizance  and  give  bond  («'),  to  well  and 
truly  perform  all  and  singular  the  duties  to  the  said  office 
of  coroner  appertaining  (&).  This  bond  is  taken  in  the 


(/)  We  cannot  say  "public  business"  according  to  the  old  author- 
ities for  that  is  contrary  to  the  constitution. 

(g)  See  Act  of  January  i2th,  1705-6,  Chapter  CLXI,  2  Statutes 
at  Large  272. 

(h)  An  affirmation  was  made  possible  instead  of  an  oath  by  Act  of 
27  November,  1700,  Chapter  CXXXII,  which  was  repealed  by  the  Queen 
in  Council  January  7,  1705-6.  It  was  substantially  re-enacted  January 
12,  1705-6,  Chapter  CLX,  which  act  was  repealed  by  the  Queen  in 
Council  January  8,  1707-8.  It  was  again  enacted  February  28,  1710- 
ii,  again  repealed  December  19,  1711,  and  again  enacted  May  28,  1715, 
and  this  act  was  allowed  to  become  a  law  by  lapse  of  time,  see  2 
Statutes  at  Large,  267-355,  and  3  Statutes  at  Large,  39.  See  also 
form  of  affirmation,  2  Statutes  at  Large,  267. 

(i)  By  the  Act  of  15  April,  1834,  Sect.  66,  P.  L.  550,  which  pro- 
rides  :  "The  coroner  of  each  county,  before  he  shall  be  commissioned 
or  execute  any  of  the  duties  of  his  office,  shall  enter  /into  a  recog- 
nizance and  become  bound  in  a  bond,  with  at  least  two  sufficient 
sureties,  in  one  fourth  of  the  sum  which  shall  be  by  law  required  from 
the  sheriff  of  the  same  county." 

(k)  Section  67,  of  the  Act  of  15  April,  1834,  P-  L.  550,  provides: 
"The  condition  of  the  recognizance  and  bond  to  be  given  by  the  coroner, 
shall  be,  that  such  coroner  will  well  and  truly  perform  all  and  singular 
the  duties  to  the  said  office  of  coroner  appertaining,  and  such  recog- 
nizance and  bond  shall  be  a  security  to  the  Commonwealth  and  to  all 
persons  whomsoever,  for  the  faithful  discharge  and  due  performance 
of  all  the  duties  required  by  law  from  such  coroner." 


ELECTION,  QUALIFICATIONS  AND  VACANCIES       151 

name  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania,  the  sureties 
being  approved  by  the  judges  of  the  court  of  common  pleas 
(/),  and  is  for  the  use  of  all  persons  who  may  in  any 
way  be  injured  by  the  wrongful  acts  of  the  coroner.  The 
bond  and  recognizance  must  be  recorded  in  the  office  of 
the  recorder  of  deeds  (m)  and  are  by  him  transmitted  to 
the  Secretary  of  the  Commonwealth.  When  the  Governor 
commissions  the  coroner  the  latter  must  have  the  commis- 
sion recorded  also  (n),  and  until  all  these  preliminaries  are 
completed  he  has  no  right  to  act  as  coroner  (0). 

Unless  a  recognizance  be  given  by  the  coroner  his  com- 
mission and  all  his  acts  under  it  are  void,  and  there  can 
be  no  recovery  on  his  official  bond  (/>),  but  this  is  limited 
by  sections  70  and  71  of  the  act  of  1834  (q}  which  are : 


(/)  Section  69  of  the  Act  of  15  April,  1834,  P.  L.  547,  provides :  "Be- 
fore any  such  bond  or  recognizance  shall  be  taken  by  the  recorder 
of  deeds,  the  sufficiency  of  the  sureties  therein  named  shall  be  sub- 
mitted to  and  approved  of  by  the  judges  of  the  court  of  common  pleas 
of  the  proper  county,  or  by  any  two  of  them,  for  that  purpose  convened, 
who  shall  certify  their  approbation  of  such  sureties  to  the  recorder; 
and  no  commission  shall  afterwards  be  granted  until  the  Governor 
shall  have  also  approved  of  the  sufficiency  of  such  sureties. 

(m)  By  Section  68  of  the  Act  of  15  April,  1834,  P.  L.,  547,  which 
provides :  "every  such  recognizance  entered  into  by  a  sheriff  or  coroner, 
shall  be  taken  by  the  recorder  of  deeds  of  the  proper  county,  and  re- 
corded in  his  office;  and  when  so  recorded,  shall  be  by  him  trans- 
mitted to  the  secretary  of  the  commonwealth,  with  a  certificate  en- 
dorsed by  such  recorder,  of  its  having  been  duly  recorded.  See  Brown- 
field  v.  Commonwealth,  13  S.  &  R.,  265  (1825). 

(n)  By  section  72,  of  the  Act  of  15  April,  1834,  P.  547,  which  pro- 
vides :  "It  shall  be  the  duty  of  every  sheriff  and  of  every  coroner,  im- 
mediately after  receiving  his  commission  from  the  Governor,  to  deliver 
the  same  to  the  recorder  of  deeds  of  the  county  by  whom  the  same  shall 
be  recorded  at  the  expense  of  such  sheriff  or  coroner." 

(o)  See  Section  73,  of  the  Act  of  15  April,  1834,  P.  L.  547-  "No, 
person  elected  or  appointed  to  the  office  of  sheriff  or  coroner,  shall 
presume  to  execute  any  of  the  duties  of  such  office,  before  a  commis- 
sion shall  have  been  duly  granted  to  him,  and  left  for  record  as  here- 
inbefore provided,  under  a  penalty  of  imprisonment  for  a  term  not 
exceeding  six  months,  at  the  discretion  of  the  court  of  Quarter  Ses- 
sions of  the  county,  provided,  that  such  person  shall  nevertheless  be 
liable  to  any  person  injured  by  any  acts  done  by  him  under  color  of 
such  office." 

(/>)  Young  v.  Commonwealth,  6  Binney  88  (1813).  See  sect.  62  of 
the  Act  of  15  April,  1834,  P.  L.,  547-  By  Sect.  63  the  amount  of  the 
bond  and  recognizance  is  fixed,  it  varies  from  $80,000  in  Philadelphia 
County  to  $5,000,  in  Greene,  Crawford,  Warren,  McKean,  Clearfield 
and  Potter.  The  form  of  the  bond  and  recognizance  is  given  in  the 
appendix.  The  sections  here  referred  to  surplant  and  repeal  the  Act 
of  28  March  1803,  P.  L.,  497. 

(q)  Act  of  15  April,  1834,  P.  L-.  547- 


152    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

"Section  70.  Provided,  that  no  judge,  clerk  or  protho- 
notary  of  any  court  or  attorney  at  law,  shall  be  permitted  to 
become  a  surety  in  such  bond  or  recognizance,  and  that  no 
person  shall  be  received  as  surety  for  a  sheriff  and  for  a 
coroner  at  the  same  time. 

Section  71.  Copies  of  the  record  of  any  such  bond  or 
a  recognizance,  acknowledged  and  recorded  as  aforesaid, 
and  duly  certified  by  the  recorder  of  deeds  for  the  time  be- 
ing, shall  be  good  evidence  in  any  action  brought  against 
the  obligors  or  cognizors,  according  to  its  form  and  effect, 
in  the  same  manner  as  the  original  would  be  if  produced 
and  offered  in  evidence." 

In  an  action  on  the  bond  the  execution  of  it  and  acting 
in  office  are  pritna  facie  evidence  that  the  sureties  have  been 
approved  (r). 

All  the  real  estate  of  the  coroner  and  his  sureties  in  the 
same  county  Is  bound  by  the  lien  of  the  recognizance  (s). 
Suits  thereon  are  still  regulated  by  the  act  of  1803  (/), 
which  reads  as  follows: 

"Whenever  the  commonwealth  or  any  individual  or 
individuals  shall  be  aggrieved  by  the  misconduct  of  any 
sheriff  or  coroner  it  shall  and  may  be  lawful  as  often  as  the 
case  may  require  to  institute  actions  of  debt  or  of  scire 
facias  upon  such  recognizance  and  against  such  sheriff  or 


(r)  Young  v.  Commonwealth,  6  Binney,  88  (1813)  and  see  Young 
v.  Commonwealth,  4  Binney,  113  (1811),  Dunn  v.  Commonwealth,  14 
S.  &R.,  431  (1826). 

(j)  By  section  74  of  the  Act  of  15  April,  1834,  P-  L-»  547.  "All  the 
real  estate,  within  the  same  county,  of  a  sheriff  and  coroner,  and  their 
respective  sureties,  shall  be  bound  by  a  recognizance  taken  in  manner 
aforesaid,  as  effectually  as  by  a  judgment  to  the  same  amount  in  any 
court  of  record  of  such  county;  and  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  every 
recorder  of  deeds,  so  soon  as  a  sheriff  or  coroner  shall  be  commis- 
sioned, to  certify  the  recognizance  taken  by  him  to  the  prothonotary 
of  the  court  of  common  pleas  of  the  same  county,  who  shall  enter  the 
names  of  the  parties  thereto  upon  his  docket,  in  like  manner  as  judg- 
ments are  by  law  directed  to  be  entered." 

Such  lien  is  discharged  by  a  judicial  sale  under  a  precedent  mort- 
gage, Sprang  v.  Commonwealth,  12  Pa.  St.,  358  (1849).  But  not  by 
a  sale  under  a  subsequent  incumbrance,  McKensey's  Appropriation,  3 
Pa.  St.,  156  (1846),  but  see  Morris's  Estate,  4  Pa.  St.,  162  (1846).  It 
does  not  bind  after  purchased  lands,  Pricker's  Appeal,  I  Watts,  393 
(1833). 

(0  28  March  1803,  Sect.  4  P.  L.,  497,  4  Smith's  Laws,  48.  This 
section  is  still  in  force.  Commonwealth  v.  Rainey,  4  W.  &  S.,  186 
(1842). 


ELECTION,  QUALIFICATIONS  AND  VACANCIES       153 

coroner  and  their  sureties,  their  heirs,  executors  or  admin- 
istrators, or  actions  of  debt  upon  such  obligation  against 
such  sheriff  or  coroner  and  their  sureties,  their  heirs,  exec- 
utors or  administratcrs,  and  if  upon  such  suits  it  shall  be 
proved  what  damage  (w)  hath  been  sustained  and  a  verdict 
and  judgment  shall  be  thereupon  given  (z/),  execution  shall 
issue  for  so  much  only  as  shall  be  found  by  the  said  verdict 
and  judgment  with  costs,  which  suits  may  be  instituted  and 
the  like  proceedings  be  thereupon  had  as  often  as  damage 
shall  be  so  as  aforesaid  sustained  (w).  Provided  always 
that  such  suit  or  suits  against  such  sureties,  their  heirs,  ex- 
ecutors or  administrators  shall  not  be  sustained  by  any 
court  of  the  commonwealth  unless  the  same  shall  be  insti- 
tuted within  five  years  (x}  after  tfo  date  of  such  obligation 
or  recognizance"  (y}. 


(«)  The  plaintiff  must  show  some  actual  loss  or  damage ;  mere  mis- 
conduct of  the  officer  is  not  sufficient,  Commonwealth  v.  McCoy,  8 
Watts,  153  (1839);  Commonwealth  v.  Conter,  21  Pa.  St.,  266  (1853); 
Commonwealth  v.  Allen,  30  Pa.  St.,  49  (1858)  ;  Commonwealth  v.  Lelar, 

5  Clark,  167  (1852).    In  an  action  on  the  recognizance  the  judgment  is 
not  for  the  penalty,  but  for  the  damages  sustained  by  the  party  suing, 
Wolverton  v.  Commonwealth,  7  S.  &  R.,  273  (1821)  ;  Campbell  v.  Com- 
monwealth, 8  S.  &  R.,  417  (1822)  ;  McMichen  v.  Commonwealth,  58  Pa. 
St.  213  (1868).     A  judgment  in  trover  against  a  sheriff  is  not  conclu- 
sive  upon   his   sureties    upon    the    question   of    damages,    Carmack   v. 
Commonwealth,  5  Binney,  188  (1812). 

(v)  In  an  action  on  coroner's  recognizance  the  judgment  is 
not  for  the  penalty,  but  for  the  damages  sustained  by  the  party  suing, 
Wolverton  v.  Commonwealth,  7  S.  &  R.,  273  (1821)  ;  Campbell  v. 
Commonwealth,  8  S.  &  R.,  417  (1822). 

(w)  A  suit  on  a  coroner's  bond  must  be  a  separate  one  for  each 
individual  who  has  sustained  injury,  Lynch  v.  Commonwealth,  16  S. 

6  R.,  368  (1827).    The  person  who  first  sues  on  the  official  bond  of  a 
coroner   is    entitled    to   have    his   judgment    paid    first,    Christman   v. 
Commonwealth,  17  S.  &  R.,  381   (1828).     But  quare  what  is  to  happen 
where  several  sue  and  the  last  to  sue  is  the  first  to  get  judgment. 

(*•)  The  time  is  to  be  computed  from  the  date  of  its  execution 
not  from  the  time  of  its  approval.  Wilson  v.  Commonwealth,  7  W.  & 
S.,  181  (1844).  The  introduction  of  a  new  party  by  suggestion  after 
the  expiration  of  the  statutory  period  is  not  the  commencement  of  a 
new  suit,  Commonwealth  v.  Springer,  13  W.  N.  C,  305  (1883).  But 
this  cannot  be  construed  to  permit  the  introduction  of  a  new  cause  of 
action.  The  lien  of  a  recognizance  as  against  the  sureties  is  gone  after 
the  lapse  of  five  years  without  suit  on  the  recognizance,  although  there 
may  have  been  a  suit  on  the  bond  given  at  the  same  time.  Smith  v. 
Miller,  13  S.  &  R.,  339  (1825). 

(y)  See  Shaeffer  v.  Jack,  14  S.  &  R.,  426  (1826).  The  lien  of  a 
sheriff's  recognizance  under  this  act  was  unlimited  both  in  duration 
and  extent  as  to  the  liability  of  the  principal,  Snyder  v.  Commonwealth, 
3  P.  &  W.,  286  (1831).  But  by  the  Act  of  3  April,  1860.  P.  L.,  650,  the 
lien  is  limited  to  ten  years  throughout  the  State  and  by  the  Act  of  13 
April,  1868,  P.  L.,  948,  it  is  limited  to  five  years  in  Philadelphia,  and 


154    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

Where  one  of  the  sureties  for  the  coroner  is  desirous 
of  selling  his  land  the  lien  of  the  recognizance  may  be  dis- 
charged on  a  petition  to  the  court  of  common  pleas,  setting 
forth  the  sale  and  praying  for  the  release,  if  the  court  is 
satisfied  with  the  sufficiency  of  the  other  sureties  (2). 

Vacancies. 

Sect.  65.  In  the  frame  of  Government  of  1683  we  find 
the  first  mention  of  vacancies  in  the  office  of  coroner  in 
Pennsylvania.  That  document  provides  (a)  that  the  gover- 
nor shall  fill  the  vacancy  until  the  next  general  election  by 
appointment,  and  such  has  been  the  law  with  immaterial 
alterations  to  the  present  time  (b).  When  any  person  who 
has  been  elected  coroner  fails  or  refuses  to  qualify  and  as- 
sume the  duties  of  the  office,  the  office  is  treated  as  vacant 


while  the  latter  act  applies  to  coroners  the  former  does  not,  the  lien  of 
a  coroner's  recognizance,  therefore  must  still  be  considered  as  unlimited 
as  against  the  coroner  himself,  except  in  Philadelphia. 

(*)  By  the  Act  of  8th  June,  1881,  P.  L.,  81,  which  is  as  follows: 
"That  hereafter  if  the  surety  for  the  sheriff  or  coroner  of  any  county 
in  this  Commonwealth  shall  make  sale  of  any  real  estate  bound  by  the 
lien  of  any  recognizance  and  bond  as  surety  for  any  sheriff  or  coroner 
he  may  present  a  petition  to  the  court  of  common  pleas  of  the  county 
in  which  said  recognizance  and  bond  was  taken  accompanied  by  notice 
of  such  application  to  his  co-sureties  setting  forth  the  fact  of  such  sale 
and  praying  for  a  release  of  lien  of  said  recognizance  and  bond  upon 
the  land  described  in  the  petition  and  the  said  court  shall  have  the 
power  to  release  said  lien  upon  said  land  the  court  being  satisfied  of 
the  sufficiency  of  the  sureties  after  lien  shall  have  been  released." 

In  Philadelphia  County  the  Act  of  n  April,  1862,  Sect,  i,  P.  L.,  437, 
provides  a  method  of  escaping  from  the  obligation  of  the  recognizance 
altogether ;  it  reads  as  follows : 

"That  whenever  it  shall  be  made  to  appear  to  any  court  in  which 
suit  has  been  or  shall  be  brought  and  judgment  entered  thereon  upon 
the  official  bond  of  a  sheriff  or  coroner  against  such  officer,  and  his 
sureties  in  the  City  and  County  of  Philadelphia,  that  more  than  five 
years  have  elapsed  since  the  execution  of  such  official  bond  and  that 
the  claim  of  all  parties  claimant  in  such  suit  who  have  become  such 
within  five  years  from  the  execution  of  such  official  bond  have  been 
satisfied  or  otherwise  finally  disposed  of,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the 
said  court  on  the  application  of  the  said  sureties  or  either  of  them  to 
order  the  judgment  entered  against  such  sureties  in  such  suit  upon 
such  official  bond  for  the  penalty  thereof,  to  be  marked  satisfied  of 
record  and  the  prothonotary  of  such  court  shall  make  such  entry  on 
the  judgment  index." 

(a)  Art.  XVI,  Duke  of  York's  Book  of  Law,  159. 

(b)  See  the  Charter  of  Privileges,  Poore's  Federal  and  State  Con- 
stitutions,  p.   1536;   Constitution  of   1776,   Poore's   Federal   and   State 
Constitutions,  p.  1540;  Constitution  of  1790,  Poore's  Federal  and  State 
Constitutions,  p.  1548;  Constitution  of  1838,  Poore's  Federal  and  State 
Constitutions,  p.  1557;  Constitution  of  1874;  i  Purdon's  Digest   (i3th 
Edition)  p.  in.    5  Purdon's  Digest  d3th  Edition)  p.  5197. 


ELECTION,  QUALIFICATIONS  AND  VACANCIES       155 

and  may  be  filled  by  the  governor  until  the  next  general 
election  (c).  If  the  coroner  notoriously  absconds,  the  gov- 
ernor may  declare  the  office  vacant  and  appoint  a  succes- 
sor 


(c)  Under  the  Act  of  5  April,  1842,  Sect,  n,  P.  L.,  235,  and  see 
Grubb's  Case,  3  Pa.  J.  L.  R.,  78  (1904). 

(d)  Under  the  Act  of  24  March,   1846,   Sect,   i,  P.  L.,   165.    In 
Erie  Co  Coroner's  Case  (op.  Atty.  Gen.)  i  Dist.  244,  n  Pa.  C.  C.  R., 
136  (1892),  the  attorney  general  says  the  governor  has  power  to  ap- 
point a  successor  under  the  Act  of  15  May,  1874,  P-  L.,  205,  but  it 
would  seem  that  the  office  being  vacant  the  governor  may  appoint  a 
successor  without  the  aid  of  an  enabeling  act. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  POWERS  AND  DUTIES  OF  CORONERS. 

Sect.  66.  As  we  have  already  noticed,  when  the  office 
of  coroner  emerges  from  the  obscurity  which  surrounds 
the  early  colonial  law  of  Pennsylvania,  we  find  it  has  under- 
gone certain  very  definite  changes.  Appeals  never  formed 
a  considerable  item  in  Pennsylvania  law  and  it  would  seem 
the  coroner's  duties  in  that  regard  were  never  transplanted 
to  America.  Wreck  of  the  sea,  also  an  important  part  of 
the  coroner's  jurisdiction,  in  a  commonwealth  of  so  narrow 
a  water  front  as  early  Pennsylvania,  naturally  played  a 
very  unimportant  part.  Treasure  trove  seems  also  to  have 
played  an  insignificant  part,  while  deodand  and  forfeiture 
in  Pennsylvania,  if  they  existed  at  all  (a),  have  long  been 
obsolete.  Robbed  thus  of  the  major  portion  of  his  ancient 
jurisdiction,  the  Pennsylvania  coroner  is  limited  in  his  com- 
mon law  duties  to  the  holding  of  inquests  of  death  and  of 
prison  breach.  This  latter  power  seems  to  have  fallen  into  a 
state  of  desuetude,  but  though  it  probably  never  was  exer- 
cised in  Pennsylvania,  we  can  see  nothing  in  the  altered 
conditions  here  which  should  take  it  from  the  coroner. 

During  colonial  times  the  legislature  seems  to  have 
felt  the  powers  of  the  coroner  had  been  too  much  reduced 
and  added  various  duties  quite  inconsistent  with  the  ancient 
character  of  the  office.  Thus  the  act  which  established  the 
old  court  of  errors  and  appeals  (b)  provided  that  the  coro- 
ner should  attend  its  sessions  and  established  means  for 
compelling  his  attendance  in  case  of  neglect.  The  coroner 
was  also  at  one  time  compelled  to  attend  the  sessions  of 
the  colonial  supreme  court  and  the  special  courts  of  oyer 
and  terminer  (c).  The  provincial  government,  moreover, 

(a)  Deodands  never  existed  in  Pennsylvania  and  forfeiture  has 
been  practically  abolished. 

(fc)  The  Act  of  28  Feby.,  1780,  10  Statutes  at  Large,  57,  which  was 
repealed  by  the  Act  of  3  April,  1791,  Chapter  1575,  and  see  the  Act  of 
i  March,  1780,  10  Statutes  at  Large,  78. 

(c)  Sect.  X  of  the  Act  of  28  Feby.  1710-11,  2  Statutes  at  Large, 
314,  repealed  by  the  Queen  in  Council  February  20,  1713-14. 
(156) 


POWERS  AND  DUTIES  OF  CORONERS  157 

gave  the  coroner  extensive  duties  at  elections  (d).  These 
powers  passed  away,  not  because  of  legislation  intended  to 
cut  down  the  duties  of  the  coroner,  so  much  as  by  the  crea- 
tion of  other  officers  to  meet  changing  conditions  with  whose 
jurisdiction  those  duties  were  more  in  accord. 

No  general  act  regulating  the  duties  of  coroner  was 
ever  passed  (e),  and  so  the  coroner  has  lost  his  ancient 
characteristic  of  collector  of  the  king's  revenue  and  has 
grown  in  Pennsylvania  to  be  the  county  officer  whose  duty 
it  is  to  investigate  the  cause  of  death  of  those  who  come 
to  a  sudden  and  violent  end  (/). 

Sect.  67.  One  of  the  most  striking  differences  between 
the  powers  of  the  coroner  in  England  and  those  of  the 
same  officer  in  Pennsylvania,  is  that  in  the  latter  he  has  no 
power  as  a  committing  magistrate  (<?).  He  may  not  call 
upon  the  constable  to  summon  his  jury  or  serve  subpoenas 
nor  hire  him  to  do  so  unless  he  intends  to  pay  for  it  out  of 
his  own  pocket  (h).  It  at  once  appears  that  the  office  was 
much  more  dignified  in  England  than  it  has  ever  been 
here  (*'). 

The  duties  of  the  coroner  in  Pennsylvania  are  still 
both  judicial  and  ministerial  (£).  The  latter  are  wider  in 

(d)  See  the  Act  of  12  January,  1/05-6,  2  Statutes  at  Large,  218,  al- 
lowed to  become  a  law  by  lapse  of  time  and  see  5  Statute  at  Large, 
I54-IS7-    The  Act  of  20  December,  1776,  9  Statutes  at  Large  158,    (re- 
pealed in   1778),  provides  that  sheriffs  and  coroners  in  counties  oc- 
cupied by  the  common  enemy  might  confine  their  prisoners  in   such 
places  as  they  deem  convenient  and  transmit  those  deemed  guilty  of 
felony  to  adjoining  counties  to  be  imprisoned. 

(e)  Per  Hemphill  J.  in  McFadgen  v.  Chester  County,  10  Pa.  C.  C. 
R.,   124,   s.  c.  7  Mont.   149   (1891).    Rentschler  v.  Schuylkill  County, 
i  Schuylkill  Legal  Record,  289  (1880).    The  Act  of  April  16,  1907,  P. 
L.,  92,  does  not  fill  the  requirements  of  a  general  statute. 

(/)  See  McFadgen  v.  Chester  County,  10  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  124,  s.  c. 
7  Mont.,  149  (1891),  and  see  the  Act  of  16  April,  1907,  P.  L.,  92,  which 
is  merely  in  affirmance  of  the  common  law,  supra. 

(g)  Walker  v.  McKean  County,  31,  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  664;  15  Dist. 
577  (1905),  contra,  Coroner's  Case,  n  Phila.,  387;  32  Legal  Int.,  142;  7 
Leg.  Gaz.  125  (1875),  when  the  jury  returns  a  verdict  of  homicide  the 
coroner  must  go  before  a  magistrate  to  swear  out  a  warrant.  See 
Coroner's  Duties,  20  Dist.  502  (1911). 

(A)  Marvin  Shaft  Inquest,  3  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  10  (1887). 

(!)  See  McFadgen  v.  Chester  County,  10  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  124,  »•  c. 
7  Mont.,  149  (1891). 

(k)  McFadgen  v.  Chester  County,  10  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  124.  »•  e- 
7  Mont.,  149  (1891).  Coroner's  Case,  n  Phila.,  387;  32  Legal  Int.,  142; 
7  Leg.  Gaz  125  (1875).  Fayette  County  Deputy  Coroners  Case,  20 
Pa  C.  C.  R.,  641;  7  Dist.,  568  (1898).  Commonwealth  v.  Higgms,  3 
Kulp,  269  (1889). 


158    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

America  than  they  were  in  England.  Besides  acting  as 
substitute  for  the  sheriff  he  also  acts  as  substitute  for  the 
prothonotary,  and  by  recent  acts  of  assembly  has  been  given 
duties  in  relation  to  morgues  and  the  registration  of  deaths 
quite  different  from  his  ancient  common  law  obligations. 

Sect.  68.  The  statute  of  fourth  Edward  I  (/)  is  said 
still  to  be  in  force  in  Pennsylvania  (m).  Perhaps,  as  quali- 
fied by  Hemphill,  J.,  in  McFadgen  v.  Chester  County  (n), 
this  is  so.  It  is  in  force  in  so  far  as  it  is  not  inconsistent 
with  our  customs,  form  of  government  or  laws  (0).  When 
we  have  said  this  however  we  have  cut  away  the  major  por- 
tion of  the  powers  conferred  by  the  so-called  statute  (/»). 

The  coroner's  court  is  not  a  court  of  record  in  Penn- 
sylvania (<?).  But  the  better  opinion,  however,  seems  to 
be  that  the  coroner  is  still  a  judicial  officer  (r)  and  his  in- 
quest a  judicial  inquiry  (s).  It  is  to  be  presumed  he  acts 
in  good  faith  (t).  Indeed,  the  supreme  court  has  gone  so 

(/)  i  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  40  (1275)  ;  see  Part  I,  Chapter  III. 

(m)  Ex  parte,  Schulz,  6  Wharton,  272  (1840)  ;  Pickett  v.  Eric 
County,  19  W.  N.  C,  60,  s.  c.  3  Pa.,  C.  C.  R.,  23  (1887)  ;  McFadgen  v. 
Chester  County,  10  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  124,  s.  c.  7  Mont.  149  (1891); 
Rentschler  v.  Schuylkill  County,  i  Schuylkill  Legal  Record,  289  (1880)  ; 
Allegheny  v.  McClung,  53  Pa.  St.  482  (1866)  ;  Coroner's  Case,  n  Phila. 
387;  32  Legal  Int.  142;  7  Leg.  Gaz.  125;  22  P.  L.  J.,  151  (1875).  See 
Marvin  Shaft  Inquest  3  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  10  (1887);  Burn's  Case,  5  Pa. 
C.  C.  R.,  549  (1888).  See  3  Henry  VII,  McFadgen  v.  Chester  County 
(supra),  Allegheny  v.  McClung  (supra},  Coroner's  Case  (supra),  and 
see  the  Report  of  the  Judges,  3  Binney,  601  (1808). 

(n)  10  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  124;  s.  c.  7  Mont.,  149  (1891). 

(0)  Quaere  whether  the  Act  of  16  April,  1007,  P.  L.,  93,  repeals  the 
whole  Act  of  4  Edward  I,  certainly  so  far  as  the  former  act  is  in- 
consistent with  the  latter  it  is  repealed. 

(/»)  Whether  4  Edward  I,  ever  went  through  Parliament  it  has 
too  often  been  held  a  statute  in  Pennsylvania  for  any  one  to  dare  to 
say  it  is  not.  However  it  probably  is  not. 

(q)  Edwards  v.  Gimbel,  202,  Pa.  St.,  30  (1902)  ;  Commonwealth  r. 
Higgins,  s  Kulp,  269  (1889). 

(r)  Coroner's  Case  (supra),  Allegheny  v.  McClung  (supra), 
Rentschler  v.  Schuylkill  County  (supra),  Watson  v.  Beaver  County,  9 
Pa.,  C.  C.  R.,  495,  s.  c.  27  W.  N.  C.  469  (1891);  Allegheny 
v.  Watts,  3  Pa.  St.,  462  (1846),  Commonwealth  -v.  Higgins,  5  Kulp,  269 
(1889)  ;  Weaver  v.  Northampton  County;  2  Lehigh  Valley,  408  (1887)  ; 
Walker  v.  McKean  County,  31,  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  664;  15  Dist.,  577  (1905). 
Uhler  v.  Northampton  County,  I  Lehigh  Valley,  213  (1886). 

(s)  Commonwealth  v.  Higgins  (supra),  Watson  v.  Beaver  County 
(supra),  Walker  v.  McKean  County  (supra),  Uhler  v.  Northampton 
County  (supra). 

(t)  Arnold's  Case,  4  Pa.  J.  L.  R.,  49  (1905)  ;  Burnett  v.  Lacka- 
wanna  County,  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  95  s.  c.  ;  i  Lack.  Jur.,  410  (1890)  ;  Fayette 
County  Coroner's  Return,  24  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  498  (1900);  Lancaster 


POWERS  AND  DUTIES  OF  CORONERS  159 

far  as  to  say  that  the  coroner  in  the  discharge  of  his  duties 
is  to  use  his  own  discretion,  basing  on  these  words  the  rul- 
ing that  he  cannot  be  fettered  by  having  the  county  com- 
missioners choose  a  physician  for  him  and  pay  the  physician 
a  fixed  salary  (u).  It  would  be  absurd  to  heap  up  authority 
upon  a  proposition  so  obvious  (v).  Yet  in  Cochrane's  case 
(w),  the  court  said:  "The  Coroner  is  to  some  extent  a 
judicial  officer  and  may  largely  decide  upon  the  question  of 
necessity  of  an  inquest."  This  remarkable  statement  of 
the  law  is  only  equalled  by  what  follows.  "But  this  determi- 
nation should  be  a  judicial  one  and  based  upon  judicial  rea- 
sons" (.*•),  sound  in  itself,  but  utterly  out  of  harmony  with 
the  doubting  spirit  of  the  opinion.  What  the  court  here 
sought  to  say  has  been  boldly  asserted  elsewhere  to  the  effect, 
namely,  that  the  coroner  must  use  his  judicial  discretion  as 
to  whether  or  not  an  inquest  is  necessary,  but  if  the  court 
find  he  erred  in  holding  the  inquest  he  shall  have  no  fees 
(y)  ',  logic  the  force  of  which  is  convincing  of  the  sinister 
effects  of  the  fee  system  (z}.  So,  too,  we  are  told  the  judi- 
cial jurisdiction  of  the  coroner  extends  to  the  investigation 
of  the  crimes  of  murder  and  manslaughter  only  (a).  The 
apparent  absurdity  of  such  a  statement  is  profound.  If  it 
is  meant  that  the  coroner  is  only  to  investigate  where  he 
knows  the  case  is  murder  or  manslaughter,  the  courts  are 


County  v.  Mishler,  100  Pa.,  624  (1882)  ;  McFadgen  v.  Chester  County, 
(supra),  Coroner's  Inquests,  I  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  14  s.  c.  3  Kulp.,  451 ;  2  Del. 
Co.,  446;  3  Lack.  L.  R.,  70.  Miller  v.  Cambria  County,  29  Superior, 
166  (1905)  ;  Fayette  County  Coroners  Inquest,  30  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  321;  35 
P.  L.  J.,  265;  9  Del.  Co.,  431  (1904).  But  this  presumption  may  be 
overthrown  by  evidence,  Coroners'  Inquests  (supra),  Fayette  County 
Coroner's  Return  (supra),  McFadgen  v.  Chester  Co.  (supra),  Lancaster 
Co.  v.  Mishler  (supra),  Uhler  v.  Northampton  Co.  (supra). 

(u)  For  the  coroner  has  given  bond  faithfully  to  perform  his 
duties,  Allegheny  County  v.  Shaw,  34  Pa.  St.,  301,  s.  c.  7  P.  L.  J., 
217,  (1859),  and  see  12  W.  N.  C,  312;  14  Lane.  Bar,  101 ;  39  Legal  Int. 
459 ;  30.  P-  L.  J.,  361. 

(v)  See  Part  I,  Chapter  V,  Sects.  40  and  41,  also  Chapt.  V,  Sect. 
46. 

(w)  12  Dist.  477,  s.  c.   27  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  282 ;  2  Pa.  J 
(1903). 

(x)  Ibid. 

(y)  The  King  v  The  Justices  of  Kent,  n  East.,  229,  cited  with  ap- 
proval, Bender's  Case,  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  664  (1890). 

(s)  For  animadversion  on  this  subject  see  Post.,  Chapter  VI. 

(a)  Bender's  Case,  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R..  664  (1890). 


160    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

manifestly  wrong.  As  a  general  proposition  this  is  not 
the  law  (6).  It  is  indeed  doubtful  whether  or  no  under 
the  present  conditions  the  approval  of  the  court  is  neces- 
sary to  the  coroner's  inquest  (c).  In  Ralston's  Petition  (J) 
it  appeared  that  the  jury  did  not  view  the  body  and  that  ex 
parte  affidavits  were  read  to  them,  yet  upon  certiorari  the 
court  refused  a  melius  inquirendum  (e)  and  decided  a  cer- 
tiorari was  the  improper  method  of  procedure.  It  is  reason- 
ably certain  that  under  the  Pennsylvania  theory  of  the  office, 
the  coroner  ought  to  be  "within  his  own  jurisdiction  *  *  * 
supreme  and  *  *  *  the  sole  judge  of  his  action  *  *  *  He 
must  exercise  his  discretion  wisely.  But  if  he  acts  un- 
wisely it  is  neither  in  the  power  of  the  court  nor  the  com- 
mission to  rectify  such  acts"  (/).  "The  judgment  of  the 
justice  (coroner)  is  entitled  to  some  consideration;  it  can- 
not be  brushed  aside  without  some  substantial  reason"  (g). 
We  cannot  but  feel  the  justice  of  the  remarks  of  Wickman, 
P.  J.,  in  Watson  v.  Beaver  County  (/&),  where  he  says, 
"a  coroner  when  holding  an  inquest  is  in  the  fullest  sense  a 
judicial  officer.  He  and  his  jury  constitute  a  court  to 
which,  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  is  attached  considerable 
dignity."  His  finding  is  still  equivalent  to  that  of  the 
grand  jury  (t),  though  at  present  it  is  never  used  as  an 
indictment,  parallel  proceedings  being  invariably  taken. 
The  coroner's  inquest  is  frequently  of  great  importance  in 
the  administration  of  criminal  justice  (£). 

Sect.  69.     Just  how  far  his  powers  as  a  court  go  is 
doubtful.    He  may  compel  the  attendance  of  witnesses  (/) 

(&)  See  Post,  Sect.  80. 

(c)  See  Smith's  Case,  4  Lane.  L.  R.,  302   (1887),  yet  it  is  there 
held  the  court  cannot  presume  anything  more  than  the  return  shows 
to  justify  the  coroner  in  holding  the  inquest. 

(d)  9  Dist.,  514  s.  c.  30  P.  L.  J.,  410  (1900). 

(e)  We  have  no  case  where  a  metis  inquirendum  was  granted  in 
Pennsylvania. 

(/)  Weaver  v.  Northampton  County,  2  Lehigh  Valley,  408  (1887), 
and  see  Post,  Sect.  80. 

(g)  Arnold's  Case,  4  Pa.  J.  L.  R.,  49  (1905). 

(A)  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  495,  s.  c.  27  W.  N.  C,  469  (1891) 

(i)  Coroner's  Case,  11  Phila.,  387,  s.  c.  32  Legal  Int.,  142;  7  Leg. 
Gaz.,  125  (1875). 

(k)  Lancaster  v.   Bern,  2  Grant.,  262    (1852)  ;  see   McFadgen  v 
Chester  County,  10  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  i2y  s.  c.  7  Mont.  149  (1891). 


POWERS  AND  DUTIES  OF  CORONERS  161 

by  attachment,  if  necessary,  and  may  punish  their  contempts 
by  fines  and  imprisonment  (m). 

In  Philadelphia  County  the  coroner  is  relieved  by  the 
act  of  29  March,  1819  (n)  from  inquiring  into  the  deaths  of 
those  who  die  in  prison  unless  required  by  the  inspectors 
thereof,  except  in  cases  of  murder,  suicide,  manslaughter, 
or  death  caused  by  casualties.  Section  2  of  this  act  trans- 
fers this  duty  to  the  jail  physician  which  gives  an  answer 
to  the  very  natural  query  that  rises  in  our  minds;  how 
the  coroner  is  to  tell,  in  cases  of  sudden  death,  whether 
there  was  murder  or  not  unless  he  holds  an  inquest.  It  is 
evident  he  is  to  rely  on  the  jail  physician's  report. 

As  we  shall  see  later  (o)  the  coroner  is  ordinarily  to 
investigate  crime,  but  his  duties  are  still  regulated  by  the 
statute  of  of  third  Henry  VII  and  it  is  therefore  the  duty 
of  the  coroner  to  inquire  into  deaths,  I.  ex  wsitatione  die, 
2.  per  infortunium,  3.  felo  de  se,  4.  by  the  hand  of  an 
other  known  or  unknown,  and  so  in  holding  an  inquest  on 
a  man  killed  by  a  falling  derrick  he  .was  only  doing  his 
duty  under  the  statute  (/») 

The  ministerial  duties  of  the  coroner  are  the  subject 
of  a  subsequent  chapter. 

Sect.  70.  In  Pennsylvania  as  in  England  the  juris- 
diction of  the  coroner  is  limited  to  his  county,  for  similar 
reasons.  The  coroner  is  a  county  officer  and  his  jurisdic- 
tion, therefore,  limited  to  the  county  by  which  he  is  elected. 
But  within  his  county  the  coroner  has  complete  jurisdic- 
tion, even  though  the  federal  government  had  purchased 

(/)  Coroner's  Case  (supra)  Commonwealth  v.  Higgins,  5  Kulp.  269 
(1889). 

(m)  Coroner's  Case  (supra),  but  yet  it  has  been  said  it  is  doubt- 
ful if  he  can  force  answers  to  his  questions,  Commonwealth  v.  Hig- 
gins,  (supra),  where  it  was  said  of  a  refusal  "we  are  not  prepared  to 
fay  it  is  not  an  indictable  offense."  It  is  an  obstruction  of  the  cor- 
oner and  should  be  indictable,  ante.  Rentschler  v.  Schuylkill  County,  I 
Schuylkill  Legal  Record,  289  (1880),  says  in  cases  of  murder  he  can 
commit  the  offender  without  bail,  but  an  order  by  the  coroner  to  enter 
bail  before  another  magistrate  is  beyond  doubt  irregular,  Commonwealth 
v.  Higgins  (supra). 

(n)  Sect.  I,  7  Smith's  Laws,  219. 

(o)  Post,  Sect.  78. 

(p)  Per  Reeder,  J.,  Uhler  v.  Northampton,  I  Lehigh  Valley.  213 
(1886).  See  Arnold's  Case,  4  Pa.  J.  L.  R.,  49  (i9°5)  \  Rentschler  v. 
Schuylkill  County,  i  Schuylkill  Legal  Record,  289  (1880). 


162    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

a  tract  of  land  to  be  used  as  an  arsenal,  the  state  reserving 
the  right  to  serve  its  process  on  the  tract.  It  was  held  that 
in  such  a  case  the  coroner  had  power  to  hold  an  inquest 
upon  the  bodies  of  some  seventy-two  persons  killed  at  the 
arsenal  in  an  explosion  (<?). 

Where  one  dies  in  one  county  and  is  brought  into 
another  county  the  coroner  of  the  county  where  the  body 
is  brought  may  lawfully  hold  the  inquest  (r).  But  it  has 
been  said  it  would  be  proper  for  the  coroner  of  the  county 
where  the  person  died  to  empanel  a  jury,  take  it  into  the 
other  county,  there  view  the  body  and  then  bring  them  back 
to  their  home  jurisdiction  to  hear  evidence  (.?).  It  is  prob- 
able that  if  the  coroner  of  the  situs  of  the  death  demand 
it  he  alone  has  jurisdiction  (f). 

Where  the  stroke  is  given  in  one  county  and  the  death 
occurs  in  another,  the  law  is  the  same  in  Pennsylvania  as 
it  was  in  England  (u)  but  somewhat  relaxed;  the  coroner 
of  the  county  where  the  stroke  is  given  has  no  jurisdiction, 
for  no  crime  was  committed  and  no  death  occurred  in  his 
county,  but  under  the  statute  of  2  &  3  Edward  VI,  chapter 
24,  Sect.  2,  which  is  still  in  force  in  Pennsylvania  (v), 
the  coroner  of  the  county  where  the  victim  died  has  juris- 
diction. It  will  no  doubt  be  remembered  that  this  statute 
does  not  apply  to  cases  of  death  by  misadventure,  but  it 
seems  reasonable  that  the  American  law  has  expanded  to 
take  in  the  analogous  case,  and  though  it  is  an  open  question, 
the  better  opinion  seems  to  be  that  in  cases  of  misadventure 
the  coroner  of  the  county  where  the  man  died  and  he  alone 
has  jurisdiction. 

Sect.  71.  By  two  recent  acts  the  duties  of  the  coroner 
have  been  varied.  The  first  limits  his  duties.  The  second 
extends  them.  The  act  of  30  March,  1897,  P.  L.  8  provides : 


(g)  Allegheny  County  v.  McClung,  53  Pa.  St.,  482  (ii..,. 

(r)  Pickett  v.  Erie  County,  19,  W.  N.  C,  60;  3  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  23 
(1887).  This  was  doubted,  Rentschler  v.  Schuylkill  County,  i  Schuyl- 
kill  Legal  Record,  289  (1880). 

(s)  Rentschler  v.  Schuylkill  County  (supra),  Pickett  v.  Erie 
County  (supra.) 

(0  Rentschler  v.  Schuylkill  County  (snpra). 

(«)  See  Part  I,  Chapter  II,  Sect.  24. 

(v)  Report  of  the  Judges,  3  Binney,  620. 


POWERS  AND  DUTIES  OF  CORONERS  163 

"Whenever  the  coroner  shall  have  been  called  and  views 
a  dead  body  and  decides  that  no  inquest  is  necessary,  he 
shall  certify  and  return  this  fact  as  inquests  are  now  re- 
turned, and  for  such  services  he  shall  receive  the  same 
fee  and  mileage  as  is  now  allowed  by  law  for  such  view 
when  followed  by  an  inquest;  such  fee  and  mileage  to  be 
paid  as  provided  by  law  where  an  inquest  is  held"  (w). 
Under  this  act  it  has  been  held  that  the  coroner  must 
make  this  view  alone,  unaided  by  the  assistance  of  wit- 
nesses (.*•)  or  of  a  physician.  How  far  the  coroner  is 
called  to  go  in  prosecuting  the  preliminary  inquiries  neces- 
sary to  enable  him  to  make  up  his  mind,  it  is  difficult  to  say. 
It  may  be  that  in  some  instances  an  inspection  of  the  body 
will  be  necessary;  ordinarily,  however,  this  duty  will  be 
fully  met  by  taking  the  statement  of  the  supposed  cause 
of  death  from  those  who  bring  him  the  information  (y). 
As  to  when  the  inquest  ought  to  be  held  we  shall  observe 
the  recent  authorities  in  a  subsequent  chapter;  suffice  it 
here  to  say  that  in  a  recent  decision  (2)  it  was  said  that 
where  the  death  results  from  natural  causes  (a  matter  which 
cannot  possibly  be  determined  but  by  judicial  proceedings) 
no  inquest  should  be  taken  (a),  nor  preliminary  examina- 
tion held.  A  more  pernicious  rule  can  hardly  be  con- 
ceived ;  upon  the  determination  of  a  fact  which  was  unknown 
when  the  duty  to  act  arose,  the  coroner's  fees  depend ;  and  if 
he  guesses  wrong,  he  is  not  to  be  paid.  If  the  fee  system 
is  to  exist  at  all,  and  it  is  submitted  it  should  be  at  once 
abolished,  the  act  of  1897  is  a  wholesome  neutralizer  of 
many  of  the  evils  of  the  system.  But  if  such  a  rule  as  the 
recent  cases  lay  down  is  to  be  enforced,  the  whole  benefit 
of  the  act  is  destroyed.  Two  facts  are  noticeable  in  this 


(w)  It  doubtless  would  be  wise  to  provide  justices  compensa- 
tion for  like  services,  but  such  is  not  the  law.  Re  Missimer,  20  Mont- 
gomery, 200;  3  Pa.  J-  L.  R.,  88;  18  York,  115  (1904). 

(*•)  Troutman  v.  Chambers,  9  Dist.,  533  (1900). 

(31)  Burnett  v.  Lackawanna  County,  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  95!  I  Lack. 
Jur.,  410  (1890). 

(*)  Fayette  County  Coroner's  Return,  24  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  498  (1900)  ; 
see  Metzger's  Inquest,  8  Dist.,  573  (1899). 

(o)  Fayette  County  Deputy  Coroner's  Case,  20  Pa.  C.  C  R.,  641, 
s.  c.  7  Dist,  568;  46  P.  L.  J.,  2  (1898),  goes  that  far,  and  see  Burnett 
v.  Lackawanna  County  (supra.) 


164    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

connection;  first,  the  supreme  court  has  not  spoken  on  this 
point  and  the  supreme  court  has  always  held  a  wholesome 
view  of  the  office  of  coroner;  second,  these  county  court 
cases  expressly  misread  the  act  of  1897,  for  the  very  pur- 
pose of  that  act  was  to  provide  relief  to  the  coroner  whose 
duty  it  is  to  act  when  called  upon  in  cases  where  he  is 
unnecessarily  called  upon  to  act,  as  where  the  death  was 
the  result  of  purely  natural  causes,  giving  rise  to  no  sus- 
picions, and  was  neither  sudden  nor  violent. 

Sect  72.  The  act  of  i  May,  1905,  P.  L.  335  provides 
for  the  registration  of  deaths.  The  registrar  shall  notify 
the  coroner  of  all  cases  where  death  occurred  under  sus- 
picious circumstances. 

"And  in  the  city  and  county  of  Philadelphia  it  shall 
be  the  duty  of  the  coroner  to  hold  an  inquest  on  the  body 
of  any  deceased  person  who  shall  have  died  a  violent  death 
or  whose  death  shall  be  sudden,  if  said  death  shall  be  after 
an  illness  of  less  than  twenty-four  hours  and  no  physician 
shall  have  been  in  attendance  within  said  time,  or  if  sus- 
picious circumstances  shall  render  the  same  necessary,  which 
said  suspicion  shall  first  be  sworn  to  by  one  or  more  citizens 
of  said  city.  And  any  coroner  whose  duty  it  is  to  hold 
an  inquest  on  the  body  of  any  deceased  person  and  to 
make  the  certificate  of  death  required  for  a  burial  permit 
shall  state  in  his  certificate  the  nature  of  the  decease  or  the 
manner  of  death,  and  if  from  external  causes  or  violence 
whether  (probably)  accidental,  suicidal  or  homicidal,  as 
determined  by  the  inquest  and  shall  in  either  case  furnish 
such  information  as  may  be  required  by  the  state  registrar 
to  properly  classify  the  death." 

The  question  at  once  arises  in  our  minds  as  to  the 
constitutionality  of  this  act  and  we  cannot  but  feel  that 
it  is  doubtful  at  the  best. 

The  act  of  16  April,  1907,  P.  L.  92  takes  away  from 
the  coroner  the  care  of  the  body,  and  charges  the  police 
or  health  authorities,  as  the  case  may  be,  with  the  duty  of 
caring  for  the  body  of  the  deceased.  But  at  least  so  far  as 
the  care  of  the  body  after  the  inquest  by  the  coroner  is 
concerned,  the  act  is  only  in  affirmance  of  the  common 


POWERS  AND  DUTIES  OF  CORONERS  165 

law,  for  after  the  inquest  the  coroner  had  nothing  to  do 
with  the  body  except  to  issue  his  burial  certificate. 

Sect.  73.  The  act  of  1722  (&),  which  established  the 
supreme  court,  gives  it  power  to  examine,  correct  and  punish 
the  contempts,  omissions  and  neglects,  favors,  corrup- 
tions and  defaults  of  all  or  any  of  the  coroners.  This 
act  puts  the  sanction  of  the  coroner's  office  in  the  supreme 
court.  There  is  also  an  act  of  1779  (c),  probably  obsolete, 
regulating  the  fines  and  penalties  to  be  imposed.  These 
acts  may  be  safely  disregarded  (d )  ;  there  are  two  thor- 
oughly American  remedies  which  should  be  resorted  to  in 
this  day  and  age.  The  coroner  may  be  impeached  like  any 
other  county  officer.  He  is  liable  on  his  official  bond  for 
all  damage  resulting  from  his  misdeeds.  These  remedies 
are  superior  to  any  that  may  have  been  created  by  statutes 
now  probably  obsolete  and  form  the  real  sanction  of  the 
office  of  coroner. 

The  duty  upon  the  part  of  the  coroner  to  act  when 
notified  so  to  do  is  no  less  imperative  than  formerly.  He 
may  under  the  act  of  1897  (e)  report  that  no  inquest  is 
necessary,  but  should  he  refuse  to  act  where  a  felony  had 
been  committed,  he  could  be  fined  at  the  discretion  of  the 
court  (/).  If  he  imposes  an  improper  inquisition  upon 
the  jury  he  may  be  committed  (g).  If  he  returns  the 
wrong  presentment  he  may  be  indicted. 


(&)  Act  of  22  May,  1772,  3  Statutes  at  Large,  298,  303. 

(c)  16  March,  1779,  Sect,  i ;  9  Statutes  at  Large,  320. 

(d)  Aside  from  the  constitutional  limitations  in  the  original  juris- 
diction of  the  Supreme  Court. 

(O  P.  L.,  8. 

(/)  I  and  2  P.  and  M.,  c.  13,  Lord  Buchhursf  s  Case,  i  Keble,  280 
(1662). 

(g)  Ante,  Sect.  52,  note  (a). 


CHAPTER  IV. 
CORONERS'  DEPUTIES. 

Sect.  74.  We  have  already  seen  (a)  that  the  office 
of  coroner  is  a  judicial  one  and  that  in  his  judicial  duties 
he  cannot  act  by  deputy  (&).  In  certain  cases,  however,  the 
coroner  cannot  hold  an  inquest  and  the  duty  falls  upon  the 
justices  of  the  peace  to  inquire,  but,  as  we  have  observed, 
the  investigation  so  made  is  not  properly  speaking  an  in- 
quest. In  Pennsylvania  the  melius  inquirendum  has  never 
been  used  and  the  inquiry  by  the  justices  of  the  peace  with- 
out view  of  the  body  must  also  have  been  very  rare,  although 
it  was  early  surmised  that  they  had  authority  in  the  proper 
case  (c). 

In  1841  one  Samuel  Speece,  a  deaf  and  dumb  man, 
was  run  over  by  some  of  the  cars  of  the  Philadelphia  and 
Reading  Railway  near  Limerick,  in  Montgomery  County. 
John  Dismant,  one  of  the  justices  of  the  peace  for  the 
county,  held  an  inquest  over  him  super  visum  corporis 
and  one  Schulz  was  found  by  the  jury  to  have  caused  his 
death.  Schulz  was  arrested  and  habeas  corpus  proceedings 
were  begun  at  once.  The  case  was  ably  argued  in  the 
supreme  court,  which  decided  on  the  authority  of  Com- 
monwealth v.  Brock,  an  unreported  case  decided  in  the 
supreme  court  in  1814,  in  Luzerne  County  by  Gibson,  C.  J. 
(d),  that  the  justice  of  the  peace  may  not  hold  an  inquest, 
super  visum  corporis  (e}. 

It  would  seem  that  the  justices  of  the  peace  of  the 
commonwealth  had  long  forgotten  the  distinction  between 

(o)  Part  I,  Chapter  V,  Sect.  41. 

(&)  Ex  parte,  Schulz,  6  Wharton,  269  (1841)  ;  see  Pickett  v.  Erie 
Co.,  19  W.  N.  C.,  60,  s.  c.  3  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  23  (1887),  Reitlinger's  Case,  2 
Kulp.  127  (1882). 

(c)  Ex  parte,  Schulz,  6  Wharton,  269  (1841). 

(d)  In  that  case  a  new  trial  was  granted  in  a  capital  case  be- 
cause the  inquisition  submitted  to  the  jury  was  held  by  a  justice  of 
the  peace  and  was  therefore  coram  non  judice.    This  was  probably  the 
first  new  trial  ever  granted  in  a  capital  case  in  Pennsylvania,  per  Gib- 
ton  C.  J.,  in  ex  parte  Schulz,  6  Wharton,  269  (1841). 

(e)  Ex  parte,  Schulz,  6  Wharton,  269  (1841),  and  see  Pf out's  Case, 
7  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  265  (1889)  and  Metzger's  Inquest,  8  Dist,  573  (1889). 

(166) 


CORONERS'  DEPUTIES  167 

the  circumstances  under  which  they  were  to  inquire  con- 
cerning sudden  deaths  and  those  under  which  the  coroner 
alone  had  jurisdiction,  and  claimed  what  one  might  almost 
call  a  prescriptive  right  to  hold  the  coroner's  inquest  for 
him  under  all  circumstances.  The  decision  was  a  great  sur- 
prise to  the  justices  and  the  community  at  large.  The 
commonwealth  was  now  met  with  a  flat  removal  of  the 
power  of  the  justice  to  hold  inquisitions  super  visum  cor- 
poris.  To  meet  this  situation  the  act  of  1841  was  passed 

(/)• 

This  act  reads  as  follows : 

"In  all  cases  where  by  law  the  coroner  of  any  county 
is  required  (g)  to  hold  an  inquest  over  a  dead  body  it 
shall  be  lawful  for  a  justice  of  the  peace  of  the  proper 
county  to  hold  the  same  where  there  is  no  lawfully  ap- 
pointed coroner  (h),  or  he  is  absent  from  the  county,  unable 
to  attend,  or  his  office  is  more  than  ten  miles  (i)  distant 
from  the  place  where  the  death  occurred  or  the  body  found, 
and  the  justice  shall  have  like  power  to  select,  summon,  and 
compel  the  attendance  of  jurors  and  witnesses  (&),  and  shall 
receive  like  fees  and  tax  like  costs  and  the  inquest  shall 
have  like  force  and  effect  in  law,  provided  that  no  fees  or 
costs  shall  be  allowed  or  paid  said  justice  or  inquest  until 
the  proceedings  are  submitted  to  the  court  of  quarter  ses- 
sions of  the  proper  county  and  the  said  court  shall  adjudge 
that  there  was  reasonable  cause  for  holding  said  inquest 
(/)  and  approve  the  same"  (m). 

(/)  Metzger's  Inquest  (supra).  The  decision  is  dated  Feby.  16, 
1841,  the  act  May  27th. 

(g)  See  Burn's  Case,  5  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  548  (1881)  ;  Pf out's  Case,  7 
Pa.  C.  C.  R.  265  (1889) ;  Coroner's  Inquest,  28  Pa.  C.  C.  R,  428  (1003). 

(A)  Coroner's  Inquest,  28  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  428  (1903). 

(»)  The  court  will  take  judicial  notice  of  the  distance  of  places 
from  the  county  seat,  Pickett  v.  Erie  Co.,  19  W.  N.  C.,  60,  s.  c.  3  P». 
C.  C.  R.,  23  (1887),  but  see  contra,  Cochrane's  Inquest,  12  Dist,  477. 
3.  c.  27  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  282;  2  Pa.  J.  L.  R.,  27  (1903)- 

(k)  The  act  presuming  the  coroner  has  a  right  to  summon  wit- 
nesses we  may  assume  he  has  that  power,  Coroner's  Case,  n  Phila., 
487;  32  L.  I.,  142;  7  Leg.  Gaz.,  125  (1875)- 

(/)  This  clause  gives  rise  to  the  pernicious  system  of  refusing 
fees  because  the  cause  for  holding  the  inquest  is  not  approved  by  the 
court ;  see  Post,  Sects.,  78  to  93. 

(m)  Act  of  27  May,  1841,  Sect.  15,  P.  L.,  404,  an  excellent  an- 
notation to  this  act  may  be  found  in  Reitlinger's  Case,  2  Kulp,  127  •. 
c  14  Lane.  Bar.,  123;  3  York,  101 ;  II  Luz.  Leg.  Reg.,  157  (1882). 


168    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

The  act  is  so  plain  that  it  speaks  for  itself,  but  it 
creates  a  system  which  is  so  prenicious  that  the  act  has 
been  the  subject  of  numerous  decisions  without  removing 
the  grounds  out  of  which  innumerable  cases  are  bound  to 
arise  in  future  (n).  These  decisions  have  laid  down  the 
law  as  expressed  by  the  statute  and  interpret  it  to  mean 
that  the  justices  of  the  peace  have  no  authority  to  act  in 
place  of  the  coroner  except  by  virtue  of  the  act  (0)  and 
under  the  act  they  are  only  called  upon  to  hold  an  inquest 
where  the  coroner  is  required  to  do  so  (/>),  and  even  then  it 
is  optional  with  the  justice  whether  he  act  or  not  (q),  for 
the  words  of  the  act  are  that  it  shall  be  lawful  for  the 
justice  to  hold  the  inquest.  But  he  is  only  to  hold  it, 
first,  where  there  is  no  lawfully  appointed  coroner  (r), 
second,  or  where  the  coroner  is  absent  from  the  county 
or  unable  to  attend  at  the  time  and  place  where  the  inquest 
must  be  held  (s),  or  third,  where  the  office  of  the  coroner 
(f)  is  more  than  ten  miles  distant  from  the  place  where 
the  death  occurred  or  the  body  was  found  (u).  It  is, 
moreover,  to  be  observed  that  the  jurisdiction  of  the  justice 
is  substitutional  and  therefore  he  has  no  jurisdiction  where 
the  coroner  or  his  deputy  has  actually  taken  cognizance  of 
the  case  (v}.  But  once  the  justice  has  started  his  inquest 


(n)  The  difficulty  is  largely  removed  by  the  deputy  coroners  act 
vide,  Post,  Sect.  76. 

(0)  Coroner's  Inquests,  28  Pa.  C.  C.  R.(  428  (1903)  ;  Approval  of 
Coroner's  Inquests,  7  Dist,  566,  s.  c.  20  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  660;  2  Docket, 
65,  (1896)  ;  Lee's  Case,  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  474  (1891)  ;  Pf out's  Case,  7  Pa. 
C  C  R.,  265  (1889). 

(p)  Coroner's  Inquests,  28  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  428  (1903)  ;  Burn's  Case, 
S  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  548  (1888). 

(q)  Coroner's  Inquests,  28  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  428  (1903)  ;  Pfout's  Case, 
7  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  265  (1889)  ;  Burn's  Case,  5  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  548  (1888). 

(r)  Pfout's  Case  (supra),  Lee's  Case  (supra),  Approval  of  Cor- 
oner's Inquest  (supra),  Coroner's  Inquests  (  supra). 

(s)  Ibid. 

(t)  Article  XIV,  Sect.  IV,  of  the  State  Constitution  does  not  re- 
quire the  coroner  to  keep  his  office  in  the  county  town,  as  it  does  other 
county  officers. 

(«)  Pfout's  case  (supra),  Lee's  Case  (supra),  Approval  of  Cor- 
oner's Inquests  (supra),  Cochrane's  Inquest,  12  Dist.,  477,  s.  c.  27 
Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  282;  2  Pa.  J.  L.  R.,  27  (1903)  ;  Coroner's  Inquest  (supra). 

(v)  Arnold's  Case  4  Pa.  J.  L.  R.,  49  (1905),  even  where  the 
coroner  only  telephoned  he  was  coming. 


CORONERS'  DEPUTIES  169 

the  coming  of  the  coroner  does  not  oust  (w)  his  jurisdic- 
tion, and  if  the  coroner  afterwards  takes  an  inquest  it  is 
absolutely  void  (x). 

The  inquest  by  the  justice  of  the  peace  being  purely  a 
creature  of  statute,  the  return  must  show  on  its  face  that 
the  justice  had  jurisdiction  (y)  by  reason  of  the  facts  being 
within  one  of  the  provisoes  of  the  statute  (2).  It  cannot 
be  presumed  (a).  The  justice's  returns  of  the  facts  upon 
which  his  jurisdiction  rests  is,  however,  conclusive ;  but  it  is 
not  conclusive  of  the  necessity  of  holding  the  inquest  (b). 

Once  the  jurisdiction  of  the  justice  has  attached,  he 
is  to  be  governed  by  the  same  rules  and  have  the  same  rights 
and  powers,  duties  and  liabilities  as  the  coroner  (c).  This 
is  the  general  rule  as  laid  down  by  the  weight  of  authority, 
but  a  better  statement  of  the  law  seems  to  be  found  in  two 
cases.  In  re  Missimer  (d}  the  court  said,  "the  act  of 
1841  does  not  invest  the  justice  of  the  peace  with  all  the 
functions  of  coroner  *  *  *  the  justice  does  not  become 

(a;)  Ibid. 

(x)  Bracton,  f  I2ib,  Statute  4  Edward  I,  Sect.  2;  i  Statutes  of 
the  Realm,  40  (1275).  In  force  in  Pennsylvania  Report  of  the  Judges, 
3  Binney,  601. 

(y)  Reitlinger's  Case,  2  Kulp.  127;  14  Lane.  Bar,  123;  3  York, 
101 ;  ii  Luz.  L.  Reg.  157  (1882)  ;  Coroner's  Inquest,  i  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  677  I 
s.  c.  2  Del.  Co.  446-475;  3  Kulp.  451 ;  3  Lane.  L.  R.  70  (1885),  which 
follows  Coroner's  Inquest,  i  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  14  (1885);  Marvin  Shaft 
Inquest,  3  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  10  (1887)  ;  Pf out's  Case,  7  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  265 
(1889)  ;  Lee's  Case,  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  474  (1891)  ;  Approval  of  Coroner's 
Inquests,  7  Dist.  566;  s.  c.  20  Pa.  C.  C.  R.66o;  2  Docket,  65  (1806)  ;  Metz- 
ger's  Inquest,  8  Dist.  573  (1889)  ;  Coroner's  Inquest,  28  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  428 
(1903)  ;  Grubb's  Case,  3  Pa.  J.  L.  R.  78  (1904);  but  where  jurisdiction 
does  not  appear  on  the  face  of  the  inquest  it  may  be  sent  back  to  the 
Justice  for  amendment,  Coroner's  Inquest,  i  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  14;  3  Kulp. 
451 ;  2  Del.  Co.  446;  3  Lane.  L.  R.  70  (1885),  and  the  Court  will  take 
judicial  notice  that  one  town  is  more  than  ten  miles  distant  from  an- 
other, Pickett  v.  Erie  County,  19  W.  N.  C.  60;  3  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  23  (1887), 
contra. 

(z)  The  Justice  may  have  other  powers  than  those  set  out  in  the 
act,  though  these  decisions  are  wholly  inconsistent  with  the  existence 
of  such  powers. 

(a)  Grubb's  Case,  3  Pa.  J.  L.  R.  78  (1004). 

(b)  Reitlinger's  Case,  2  Kulp.  127;  s.  c.  14  Lane.  Bar,  123;  3  York, 
101 ;  ii  Luz.  L.  Reg.  157  (1882). 

(c)  Coroner's  Inquests,  28  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  428   (1903);  Reitlinger's 
Case  (supra),  Lee's  Case  (supra),  Coroner's  Inquests,  i  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  14; 
s.  c.  3  Kulp,  451,  2  Del.  Co.  446,  3  Lane.  L.  R.  70  (1885)  ;  Coroners 
Inquests,  I  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  667;  2  Del.  Co.  475  (1885)  ;  Pfout  s  Case    7 
Pa   C   C   R   265  (1889)  ;  Approval  of  Coroners'  Inquests,  7  I 

s.  c.  20  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  660;  2  Docket,  65  (1896). 

(rf)  20  Mont.  200;  3  Pa.  J-  L.  R.  88;  18  York,  115  (1904)- 


170    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

a  coroner,  but  in  certain  specific  cases  performs  the  same 
duties  that  are  required  of  the  coroner.  *  *  *  How,  then, 
can  it  be  said  that  the  giving  of  additional  powers  to  the 
coroner  .confers  like  powers  on  the  justice  of  the  peace?" 

<«). 

Sect.  75.     When  we  consider  this  act  in  the  light  of 

our  understanding  of  the  duties  of  the  justice  of  the  peace 
in  England  a  curious  question  arises  upon  which  there 
are  no  decided  cases.  Should  the  body  not  be  found,  of 
course  the  coroner  cannot  hold  his  inquest  (/)  for  the 
coroner's  inquest,  as  we  have  seen,  must  be  super  visum 
corporis  (g).  In  England,  under  such  facts,  it  became  the 
duty  of  the  justices  of  the  peace  or  of  oyer  and  terminer  or 
of  the  King's  Bench  to  enquire,  or  the  King's  Bench  might 
appoint  a  special  commission  to  enquire  or  the  grand  jury 
might  enquire  (h) ;  but  these  enquiries  are  not,  properly 
speaking,  "inquests"  (i).  In  view  of  the  act  of  1841,  it  is 
doubtful  whether  or  not  the  justices  of  the  peace  may  act  at 
all  in  Pennsylvania,  except  under  its  provisions,  upon  the 
principle  that  it  is  the  only  legislation  upon  the  justice's  pow- 
ers in  such  cases  and  unius  expressit  alterius  exclusit,  al- 
though before  the  act  he  was  thought  to  have  like  powers 
with  the  justice  in  England  (&).  Ordinarily  it  might  be  ar- 
gued that  an  act  passed  expressly  widening  the  duties  of  an 
office  could  not  be  held  to  narrow  them,  but  this  is  met  with 
innumerable  authorities,  dicta  purely  obiter,  to  be  sure,  to 
the  effect  that  the  justice's  only  power  concerning  inquests 
is  that  conferred  by  the  act  of  1841.  These  decisions  are, 
to  be  sure,  of  little  value  or  authority;  there  is  not  one 
by  an  appellate  court  and  in  not  one  is  the  ancient  power  of 


(f)  And  see  also  Coroner's  Inquests,  i  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  14;  3  Kulp. 
451;  2  Del.  Co.  446;  3  Lane.  L.  R.  70   (1885)  :    "I  do  not  think  that 
justices  of  the  peace  have   the   same  right  to  exercise   the  coroner's 
judicial  functions  as  the  coroner  himself  has."     So  if  the  neighbors 
will  pay  for  an  inquest  by  a  justice  he  must  take  it,  sed  quare. 

(/)  27  Assize,  55;  4  Blackstone's  Commentaries,  274;  2  Hawkins's 
Pleas  of  the  Crown,  42. 

(g)  i  Blackstone's  Commentaries,  348. 

(A)  Stanlack's  Case,  i  Ventris,  182;  s.  c.  i  Modern,  82  (1671); 
Anonymous,  i  Ventris,  352  (1680),  and  see  2  Roll's  Abridgment,  96 
€.30;  i  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c.  27,  Sects.  12  and  13. 

(i)  2  Hawkins's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  c.  9,  Sect.  23. 

(*)  Ex  parte  Schulz,  6  Wharton,  269  (1841). 


CORONERS'  DEPUTIES  171 

the  justices  to  hold  inquests  not  super  visum  corporis,  where 
the  body  is  missing,  mentioned.  These  things  would  of 
themselves  detract  from  the  value  of  the  decisions,  but 
they  are  so  sweeping  and  so  notoriously  ill-considered  in 
other  respects  that  we  are  almost  tempted  to  doubt  their 
authority  in  all  respects.  Yet  even  so  we  are  left  in  doubt 
as  to  whether  or  not  a  justice  has  a  right  to  enquire  under 
facts  such  as  we  are  considering.  If  the  justice  may  not 
inquire  the  justices  of  oyer  and  terminer  may,  but  it  is 
doubtful  whether  or  not  a  court  of  oyer  and  terminer 
would  inquire;  it  has  no  right  to  delegate  its  power.  The 
supreme  court  as  standing  in  the  place  of  the  Court  of  King's 
Bench  might  seem  to  have  power  to  inquire  or  to  appoint 
a  commission  to  inquire,  but  in  view  of  the  fact  that  its 
original  jurisdiction  is  expressly  stipulated  and  limited  by 
the  constitution  of  1874  (/)  it  could,  of  course,  not  ex- 
ercise the  power  to  inquire,  though  it  might  appoint  a 
commission.  Of  course  the  grand  jury  could  inquire,  but 
the  grand  jury's  inquest  is  not  comparable  with  that  of 
the  coroner.  The  purpose  of  the  grand  jury's  quest  is 
utterly  different  from  that  of  the  coroner's  as  we  shall 
see  later.  The  grand  jury,  in  all  probability,  would  not 
inquire  unless  crime  were  strongly  suspected,  whereas,  as 
we  shall  see  later,  some  cases  require  the  action  of  the 
coroner  even  though  no  crime  be  suspected.  In  such  cases 
we  are  forced  to  conclude  the  justices  of  the  court  of  oyer 
and  terminer  are  the  only  authority  in  which  is  vested  the 
power  to  inquire. 

Sect.  76.  Ten  years  after  the  decision  of  ex  parte 
Schulz  which  gave  rise  to  the  system  of  inquests  by  a  jus- 
tice of  the  peace,  still  another  method  of  meeting  the  de- 
ficiency of  coroners  in  Pennsylvania  was  devised  by  the  leg- 
islature. By  the  act  of  1852  (w)the  coroner  of  Lancaster 
County  was  empowered  to  appoint  any  number  of  deputies 
to  act  for  him  in  that  county.  This  act  was  the  opening 
wedge.  A  decade  later  the  act  of  1841  was  repealed  as 
to  Northampton  County  and  deputies  were  authorized  to 


(/)    Article  V,  Sect.  3. 

(m)  3  April,  1852,  Sect.  20,  P.  L.  246. 


172    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

be  appointed  (n).  This  act  was  extended  to  other  coun- 
ties (0).  In  1864  an  act  was  passed  giving  the  coroner 
of  Chester  County  limited  authority  as  to  the  appointment 
of  deputies  (/>).  In  1889  an  attempt  was  made  to  extend 
the  system  of  deputy  coroners  over  the  entire  state  (4). 
Grave  doubts  were  expressed  as  to  the  constitutionality  of 
the  act  (r).  In  1891  the  case  of  Commonwealth  v.  Grier 
brought  up  squarely  the  constitutionality  of  the  act  of 
1889.  A  deputy  coroner  of  Allegheny  County,  alleging 
that  he  had  been  both  generally  and  specially  deputized  to 
act  for  the  coroner  both  in  general  and  for  this  particular 
case,  asked  for  his  fees  which  the  county  comptroller  re- 
fused to  certify.  The  deputy  took  the  case  to  court.  The 
question  at  once  arose  whether  or  not  the  deputy  coroner 
is  a  county  officer.  The  court  said: 

"The  act  of  1889  says  that  the  coroner  may  appoint 
any  number  of  persons  to  act  for  him  in  his  place  and  stead, 
that  is,  that  the  deputy  may  do  whatever  the  coroner  may 
do.  This  includes  the  power  to  act  as  the  substitute  for  the 
sheriff,  and  wherever  the  discretion  and  judgment  of  the 
coroner  are  required  the  deputy  is  to  have  the  power  to 
exercise  them  as  if  he  were  the  coroner.  The  fact  is  that 
the  deputy  was  generally  authorized  to  act  and  the  fact  that 
he  was  authorized  to  act  in  this  particular  case  does  not, 

(n)  In  such  sections  as  the  coroner  deems  necessary,  Act  of  I  May, 
1861,  Sects.  I  and  2,  P.  L.  560. 

(o)  To  Schulykill  by  the  Act  of  14  Feby.,  1863,  Sect.  I  P.  L.  30; 
to  Bucks  by  the  Act  of  21  March,  1873,  Sect,  i,  P.  L.  348. 

(/>)  Act  of  17  March,  1864,  Sect,  i,  P.  L.  21,  and  see  the  Act  of 
22  March,  1867,  P.  L.  532,  as  to  Phila.  County,  and  the  Acts  of  30 
Jany.,  1866,  P.  L.  6,  and  28  June,  1871,  P.  L.  1380,  as  to  Schuylkill 
and  Mercer  Counties.  The  Act  of  19  April,  1856,  P.  L.  470,  provides 
that  no  justice  in  Allegheny  County  shall  hold  an  inquest  unless  it  is 
impracticable  to  obtain  the  personal  attendance  of  the  coroner  after 
notice  given  to  him,  or  reasonable  and  proper  efforts  made  to  give  him 
notice  of  the  death. 

(g)  Act  9  May,  1889,  P.  L.  162.  But  it  has  been  said  this  act 
does  not  apply  to  counties  having  local  laws,  Grove's  Case,  26  Pa. 
C.  C.  R.  449  (1900). 

(r)  Commonwealth  v.  Grier,  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  444  (1891)  ;  Fogerty 
v.  Schuylkill  County,  13  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  454  (1893)  ;  Eckard  v.  Fayette 
County,  5  Dist.  371 ;  s.  c.  43  P.  L.  J.  461  (1896)  ;  Fayette  County  Deputy 
Coroner's  Case,  7  Dist.  568;  20  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  641 ;  46  P.  L.  J.  2  (1898)  ; 
Troutman  v.  Chambers,  9  Dist.  533  (1900),  as  to  counties  having  over 
150,000  inhabitants.  The  second  section,  which  is  still  in  force,  is  un- 
constitutional, Commonwealth  v.  Grier  (supra). 


CORONERS'  DEPUTIES  173 

for  the  purposes  of  this  case  make  any  difference.  If  then 
he  has  all  the  powers  of  the  county  coroner,  he  is  a  county 
officer,  he  cannot  be  compensated  by  fees,  for  the  consti- 
tution requires  that  he  shall  be  paid  a  salary;  besides  he 
must  be  elected.  But  suppose  he  is  not  a  county  officer 
then  he  must  be  either  a  deputy  or  clerk;  if  he  is  either 
he  cannot  be  compensated  by  fees,  for  the  constitution  ex- 
pressly forbids  that,  as  do  the  acts  of  assembly.  Salaries 
are  stated  sums  for  stated  periods  and  cannot  be  made 
synonymous  with  fees,  and  besides,  in  the  large  counties 
like  Philadelphia  and  Allegheny  the  coroner  could  ap- 
point an  indefinite  number  of  "deputies  whose  fees  would 
eat  up  all  the  excess  over  the  sum  sufficient  to  pay  salaries 
and  so  defeat  the  very  object  of  the  act,  which  is  to  pay 
salaries  out  of  the  fees  and  leave  the  balance  as  a  fund  for 
the  benefit  of  the  taxpayers.  Again,  under  this  system  it 
would  be  possible  for  the  deputy  to  secure  a  larger  income 
than  the  coroner  himself.  But  the  main  case  against  the 
act  is  that  its  title  does  not  clearly  express  the  subject-mat- 
ter covered  by  it." 

The  title  of  the  act  is  "An  act  to  provide  for  the  ap- 
pointing of  deputy  coroners  in  the  several  counties  of  this 
Commonwealth."  "Now  what  notice  did  the  title  of  the 
act  of  1889  give  to  counties  of  over  150,000  people  that 
deputy  coroners  were  to  be  paid  by  fees  and  that  the 
whole  system  fixed  by  the  act  of  1876  was  changed  as 
far  as  coroners  were  concerned?  No  one  hearing  the  title 
read  would  receive  any  notice  of  how  they  were  to  be  ap- 
pointed or  paid.  But  another  difficulty  about  the  act  is,  does 
it  apply  to  Allegheny  County  at  all  ?  Does  it  not  apply  only 
to  such  counties  where  coroners  are  and  were  at  the  time 
paid  by  fees?"  And  then  he  quotes  the  second  section  of 
the  act  to  show  that  it  means  only  those  counties  where 
the  coroner  is  paid  by  fees.  "The  same  shall  be  paid  from 
such  funds  and  at  such  places  as  such  fees  of  the  said  cor- 
oner are  now  by  law  payable."  In  counties  which  have 
over  150,000  people  there  are  no  fees  payable  to  the  cor- 
oner, so  how  can  there  be  any  for  the  deputy.  The  lan- 
guage can  apply  to  counties  having  less  than  150,000,  but 


174    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

it  is  very  ambiguous  when  applied  to  counties  having  more. 

"We  are  of  opinion  that  the  proviso  of  the  act  of  1889 
applies  only  to  counties  already  having  deputies  and  that 
this  county  is  not  acting  under  special  laws." 

To  remedy  the  flaws  thus  found  in  the  act  of  1889,  the 
act  of  1893  (s)  was  passed;  it  provides: 

"Sect.  i.  That  from  and  after  the  passage  of  this 
act  the  regularly  elected  and  duly  qualified  coroner  in 
counties  of  this  commonwealth  may  appoint  one  or  more 
deputies  to  act  in  his  place  and  stead  as  he  may  deem  proper 
and  necessary. 

"Sect.  2.  Such  deputy  or  deputies  so  appionted  shall 
have  like  powers  to  hold  inquests,  to  select,  summon  and 
compel  the  attendance  of  jurors  and  witnesses  and  to  ad- 
minister oaths." 

In  the  first  place  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  this  act  does 
not  supply  or  repeal  the  second  section  of  the  act  of  1889, 
but  only  the  first  section  (f).  The  question  raised  in  Com- 
monwealth v.  Grier  (M)  does  not  seem  to  have  been  an- 
swered. The  question  still  remains,  is  or  is  not  the 
deputy  coroner  a  county  officer?  If  he  is,  the  act  is  uncon- 
stitutional and  void  (v),  and  it  seems  impossible  to  escape 
the  conclusion  that  the  deputy  coroner  is  a  county  officer. 

There  is  a  question  which  necessarily  arises  under  the 
act  of  1893,  and  that  is  in  how  far  does  it  effect  the  act  of 
1841.  In  Reitnauer's  Inquest  (w)  the  question  arose  whether 
where  the  coroner  has  appointed  deputies  and  divided  up  the 
county  so  that  no  place  is  more  than  ten  miles  from  the 
office  of  any  deputy  coroner  (and  of  these  facts  the  court 
will  take  judicial  notice)  the  justice  of  the  peace  is  ousted 
from  his  jurisdiction?  Endlich,  J.,  said: 


(j)  Act  of  6  June,  1893,  Sects,  i  and  2,  P.  L.  330. 

(0  Fayette  County  Deputy  Coroner's  Case  (supra). 

(«)  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  444  (1891). 

(v)  See  Constitution  of  1874,  Article  XVI,  Sect,  i;  I  Purdon's 
Digest  (l3th  Edition),  203;  Commonwealth  v.  Dauphin  County  Com- 
missioners, 23  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  646;  s.  c.  sub  non  Commonwealth  v.  Smith, 
9  Dist.  350;  3  Dauphin,  159;  7  North,  255;  6  Lack.  L.  N.  151  (1900)  ; 
Porter  v.  Shields,  200  Pa.  St.  241  (1901). 

(w)  14  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  46  (1894). 


CORONERS'  DEPUTIES  175 

"I  can  find  no  warrant  for  an  affirmative  answer  to 
that  question.  It  is  a  general  rule  of  statutory  interpre- 
tation that  an  enactment  will  not  be  held  to  change  the 
existing  law  unless  the  intention  to  do  so  be  disclosed 
with  irresistible  clearness.  *  *  *  The  act  of  1889  con- 
tains no  expressions  which  as  affecting  the  right  of  a  jus- 
tice of  the  peace  to  hold  an  inquest  and  be  paid  for  it,  under 
the  existing  laws,  satisfy  this  test.  Though  there  be  a 
deputy  coroner  in  a  district  and  though  he  be  entitled  to 
act  in  the  place  and  stead  of  the  coroner,  he  is,  neverthe- 
less, not  the  coroner,  but  only  his  deputy.  Even  the  legis- 
lature cannot  make  that  a  fact  which  is  not  a  fact.  *  *  * 
No  doubt  it  may  oust  the  justice's  jurisdiction  where  the 
office  of  a  deputy  coroner  is  accessible  within  any  given 
number  of  miles.  But  it  has  not  done  so."  (#). 

But  while  the  legislature  has  no  power  to  make  that  a 
fact  which  is  not  a  fact,  the  act  of  1841  has  in  some  coun- 
ties (3;)  become  practically  obsolete. 

The  fees  for  the  inquests  held  by  a  justice  of  the  peace 
are  only  allowable  where  the  court  approves  the  inquest 
so  that  the  court  has  within  its  discretion  the  refusal  of 
fees  to  such  an  extent  as  to  make  it  practically  impossible 
for  the  justice  to  secure  fees  and  so  crush  the  inclination 
of  the  justices  to  hold  inquests.  By  this  means  the  more 
logical  method  of  managing  inquests  throughout  the  county 
has  been  restored  and  we  are  where  England  was  in  the 
time  of  King  Edward  I,  there  being  several,  an  undeterm- 
inate  number,  of  coroners  in  every  county,  except  that 
we  call  all  but  one  of  them  deputy  coroners  and  that  they 
are  not  elected. 


(*•)  This  case  is  purely  obiter  and  refuses  to  decide  whether  or 
not  the  act  applied  to  Berks  County,  nor  whether  there  could  be  a 
general  and  a  special  deputation  under  both  acts  as  was  claimed. 

(y)  Montgomery,  for  example.  See  article,  Philadelphia  Evening 
Bulletin,  August  14,  1906. 


CHAPTER  V. 
THE  CORONER'S  JURY. 

Sect.  77.  As  in  England,  so  in  Pennsylvania,  the  cor- 
oner is  aided  in  his  investigations  by  a  jury.  The  first 
question  that  arises  in  our  minds  is  how  does  the  coroner 
choose  his  jury.  There  are  elaborate  provisions  in  the 
law  for  the  selection  of  juries  to  try  issues  of  fact  in  the 
courts  of  this  commonwealth,  but  these  do  not  apply  to  the 
coroner's  jury  for  two  reasons:  first,  because  the  cor- 
oner's jury  does  not  try  an  issue  of  fact,  but  investigates 
a  fact,  there  is  no  matter  before  it  asserted  on  the  one  side 
and  denied  on  the  other;  the  duty  of  the  coroner's  jury  is 
to  investigate  circumstances  and  declare  what  truth  the  evi- 
dence before  them  establishes.  But  were  we  to  grant  for 
the  sake  of  argument  that  the  coroner's  jury  does  try  an 
issue  of  fact  there  is  a  second  reason  why  the  laws  relating 
to  the  selection  of  jurors  do  not  apply  to  the  coroner's 
jury;  that  reason  is  this,  the  coroner  has  long  since  ceased 
to  be  in  Pennsylvania  what  in  England  he  always  has 
been,  to  wit,  in  the  strictest  sense,  a  court.  It  therefore 
appears  that  in  Pennsylvania  the  coroner  is  at  liberty  to 
choose  his  jury  as  seems  to  him  right  and  proper.  In 
Philadelphia  County  the  coroner  reserves  the  right  to  select 
any  person  he  pleases  without  regard  to  residence  or  citizen- 
ship. But  in  practice  he  keeps  a  list  of  applicants  for 
places  on  the  jury  and  makes  out  his  jury  from  that  list. 
The  right  to  disregard  residence  and  citizenship  is  too 
broad.  The  statute  of  fourth  Edward  the  first,  requires 
that  the  jury  be  of  the  four  next  vills;  while  that  can 
hardly  be  said  to  apply  in  Pennsylvania  to-day  there  is  no 
doubt  that  under  the  common  law,  as  we  have  seen,  the 
jury  must  be  men  of  the  county.  Besides  they  must  be  le galls 
homines,  and  aliens  are  not  such.  These  points,  however, 
never  have  been  raised. 

In  practice  the  coroner's  jury  in  Philadelphia  always 
is  a  jury  of  men  of  the  county. 
(176) 


THE  CORONER'S  JURY  177 

In  Pennsylvania  the  coroner's  jury  always  has  con- 
sisted of  six  (a).  They  are  not  challengeable  by  either 
party  (b),  but,  as  we  have  observed  in  the  case  of  the  jury 
in  England  it  is  the  wiser  part  for  the  coroner  to  allow 
challenges  by  either  party,  for  cause,  for  it  is  better  that 
the  jurors  be  challenged  than  that  the  inquest  be  quashed 
(c).  It  is  true  that  since  the  abolition  of  outlawry  (d) 
the  principal  cause  for  challenge  to  coroner's  jurors,  i.  e. 
that  they  are  not  good  and  lawful  men,  is  minimized,  but 
the  old  precaution  is  still  wise  for  aliens  and  convicts  (e) 
are  not  proli  et  legalls.  Chosen  as  they  are  it  is  presumed, 
as  in  all  modern  juries,  that  the  jurymen  know  nothing  of 
the  case  to  be  investigated.  If  they  do,  it  is  their  duty  to 
so  state  to  the  coroner  and  to  become  witnesses  at  the 
inquest.  Thus  purged,  the  jury  is  to  be  sworn  or  affirmed 
(/)  super  visum  corporis  (g)  by  the  coroner  himself  or  his 
deputy  (h)  well  and  truly  to  inquire  into  the  matter 
pending  before  them  and  a  true  verdict  to  render,  accord- 
ing to  the  evidence.  It  is  their  privilege  to  call  back  any 
witness  who  has  testified  before  them  to  ask  any  question 
elucidatory  of  their  inquiry  and  they  are  entitled  to  the 
opinion  of  the  coroner  upon  matters  of  law  (»).  If  they 
refuse  to  render  a  verdict  they  may  be  fined  (k).  What  is 
to  happen  if  they  do  not  agree  is  uncertain.  In  practice  they 
never  do.  Until  they  agree  the  inquest  is  incomplete  and 
therefore  not  a  valid  inquest;  the  coroner,  therefore,  has 


(a)  Ex  parte  Schulz,  6  Wharton,  269  (1841)  ;  Reitnauer's  Case,  14 
Pa.  C.  C  R.  46  (1893).  The  Act  of  16  May,  1857,  Sect,  i,  P.  L.  536,  is 
only  declaratory  of  the  common  law. 

(fr)  Withipole's  Case,  Croke's  Charles,  134.  Jones,  198-9;  Ley., 
81  (1628). 

(O  Ante,  Sect.  51. 

(</)  Outlawry  still  exists  in  Pennsylvania,  but  it  is  practically 
abolished. 

(e)  Certainly  those  convicted  of  perjury. 

(/)  Umfreville's  Lex  Coronatoris,  187;  Jervis  on  Coroners,  257; 
and  see  Stoeker's  Inquest,  3  Kulp,  487  (1890). 

(g)  Lest  much  of  the  evidence  be  taken  with  the  jury  not  under 
oath. 

(h)  Since  the  Deputy  Coroners'  Act  of  1893,  or  by  the  justice  of 
the  peace  where  he  acts  in  place  of  the  coroner. 

(»)    Jervis  on  Coroners,  258. 

(k)  Travener's  Case,  3  Bulstrode,  173. 


178    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

the  right  to  set  the  jury  aside  for  refusing  to  agree  and  to 
hold  another  inquest  (/).  But  there  is  no  method  of 
forcing  an  agreement. 

The  coroner  is  bound  to  accept  whatsoever  presentment 
the  jury  makes  (m).  He  cannot  stop  the  course  of  an 
inquest  once  begun  unless  the  jury  return  that  they  can- 
not agree.  He  cannot  fine  them  for  not  finding  according 
to  the  evidence  (n).  If  they  choose  to  assume  the  re- 
sponsibility of  violating  their  oaths,  he  is  bound  to  ac- 
cept their  verdict  and  has  no  right,  as  was  recently  done 
in  Philadelphia,  to  force  them  to  bring  in  a  verdict  in 
accord  with  his  ideas  of  the  facts  and  the  law. 

In  the  famous  Lewis  murder  case  which  attracted  so 
much  of  the  public  attention  at  the  time,  the  coroner  re- 
fused to  accept  the  verdict  of  the  jury  and  sent  the  case 
back  to  them  for  further  consideration.  This  was  beyond 
doubt  an  abuse  of  his  legal  authority ;  they,  not  he,  were  to 
render  the  verdict.  He  was  not  a  judge  of  the  facts.  Af- 
ter sending  the  case  back  twice  he  accepted  the  third  verdict 
directed  against  two  parties  who  were,  it  would  seem,  inno- 
cent. Habeas  corpus  proceedings  were  brought  and  the 
court  seems  to  have  taken  the  view  that  the  third  present- 
ment of  the  jury  was  invalid.  It  is  a  grave  pity  that,  in 
view  of  the  total  absence  of  Pennsylvania  authority  on 
this  subject  the  court  neglected  this  opportunity  of  ex- 
pressing an  opinion  upon  the  facts  involved,  for  we  are 
left  in  ignorance  as  to  whether  the  ground  for  the  dis- 
missal of  the  suspects  was  the  invalidity  of  the  jury's 
third  finding,  the  alleged  principle  that  a  coroner's  inquest 
amounts  to  nothing,  or  the  evidence  produced  at  the  hear- 
ing. The  court  dismissed  the  defendants  without  bail  (0). 


(/)    For  the  first  is  void,  therefore  the  second  good. 

(m)  Smith's  Case,  Comberback,  383  (1697)  ;  Alderman's  Case,  2 
Levinz,  152;  s.  c.  sub  nom  Rex  v.  Alderman,  i  Ventris,  278;  sub  nom 
Anonymous,  Freeman,  419-433,  made  law  in  Pennsylvania  by  ex  parte 
Schulz,  6  Wharton,  269  (1841). 

(n)  For  it  is  within  their  discretion;  Jervis  on  the  Law  of  Cor- 
oners, 45. 

(0)  Whereupon  both  suspects  brought  damage  suits  against  the 
coroner  and  these  are  still  pending. 


THE  CORONER'S  JURY  179 

Of  course  the  old  question  remains  whether  or  not 
the  jury  have  a  right  to  find  contrary  to  their  instruction, 
but  in  accordance  with  moral  right.  A  discussion  of  this 
point  properly  belongs  to  a  work  on  juries  in  general.  They 
are  instructed  by  the  coroner  but  there  is  no  method  of 
punishing  them  for  an  improper  finding. 


CHAPTER  VI. 
THE  CORONER'S  INQUEST — WHEN  HELD. 

Sect.  78.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  coroner  in  proper  cases 
to  ascertain  with  as  much  precision  as  possible  the  cause  of 
death  (a).  The  investigation  thus  made  necessary  is  the 
inquest.  It  is  sometimes  said  to  be  the  first  motion  of  the 
machinery  of  the  law  to  punish  homicide  (b).  The  object 
of  the  inquest  in  Pennsylvania  is  different  from  the  object 
thereof  in  England  prior  to  the  settlement  of  this  country. 
There  the  questions  of  deodands  and  forfeitures  played 
an  important  part;  here  the  matters  relating  to  the  king's 
revenue  have  no  application  (c).  The  object  of  the  inquest 
has  been  defined  by  the  supreme  court  to  be  "to  seek  in- 
formation and  obtain  and  secure  evidence  in  case  of  death 
by  violence  or  other  undue  means"  (d).  Many  of  the 
more  recent  county  court  decisions  have  followed  the  defini- 
tion thus  laid  down,  (e)  but  we  find  considerable  divergence 
from  it.  The  object  has  been  said  to  be  to  seek  informa- 
tion (,/)  which  will  lead  to  the  detection  of  crime  (g)  or, 
as  it  is  said,  to  detect  and  aid  in  the  punishment  of  crime 
(/»)  or  fix  the  responsibility  for  the  crime  on  some  one 

(**). 

The  rule  laid  down  by  the  supreme  court  seems  to 
be  plain,  but  the  application  of  the  rule  has  been  difficult 


(a)  Lancaster  v.  Dern,  2  Grant,  262  (1852). 

(b)  Weaver  v.  Northampton  County,  2  Lehigh  Valley,  408  (1887). 

(c)  Grubb's  Case,  3  Pa.  J.  L.  R.  78  (1904). 

(d)  Ralston's  Petition,  9  Dist.  514;  s.  c.  30  P.  L.  J.  410   (1900)  ; 
Grubb's  Case   (supra)  ;  Jones'  Case,  i  Pa.  C.  C.  R.   19  (1885)  ;  Lee's 
Case,  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  477  (1891)  ;  Witmore's  Case,  3  Dist.  699;  s.  c.  14 
Pa.  C.  C.  R.  464  (1894)  ;  Metzger's  Inquest,  8  Dist.  573   (1890)  ;  Cor- 
oner's Inquests,  28  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  428  (1903)  ;  Winger  v.  McKean,  11  Dist. 
555;  s.  c.  26  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  126;  8  Del.  Co.  431 ;  18  Mont.  88  (1901)  ; 
Fayette  County  v.  Batton,  108  Pa.  St.  594  (1885). 

(/)  Grubb's  Case  (supra),  Ralston's  Petition  (supra). 

(g)  Grubb's  Case  (supra)  ;  Watson  v.  Beaver  Co.,  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R. 
495;  s.  c.  27  W.  N.  C.  469  (1891)  ;  and  see  McFadgen  v.  Chester  Co., 
10  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  124;  s.  c.  7  Mont.  148  (1891)  ;  Ralston  Petition  (supra). 

(h)  McFadgen  v.  Chester  Co.  (supra)  ;  Witmore's  Case  (supra)  ; 
Weaver  v.  Northampton  County,  2  Lehigh  Valley,  408  (1887). 

(hh)  Winger  v.  McKean  (supra). 
(180) 


THE  CORONER'S  INQUEST  181 

and  has  led  to  considerable  confusion.  Thus  it  has  been 
said  "where  life  has  been  feloniously  destroyed,  as  evi- 
denced by  wounds  or  other  circumstances,  it  is  important 
to  secure  such  evidence  of  identity  and  description  of 
the  cause  and  manner  of  death  that  may  be  available 
on  the  trial  of  the  party  charged  with  the  felony"  (i). 
And  so,  "when  death  has  been  sudden  and  the  cause  un- 
known and  circumstances  create  the  suspicion  of  guilt, 
it  is  important  to  obtain  information  that  may  lead  to 
the  arrest  of  the  supposed  guilty  party  or  that  may  re- 
lieve him  from  the  suspicion  of  guilt"  (&).  In  order  to 
understand  the  proper  application  of  the  definition  that  the 
supreme  court  has  given  us,  we  must  in  the  first  place  bear 
in  mind  two  things ;  first,  the  verdict  of  the  coroner's  jury 
has  come  in  this  state  to  have  less  and  less  weight  until 
now  it  has  no  legal  effect  (/),  and  second,  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  coroner  to-day  extends  only  to  the  investigation  of 
cases  where  the  crimes  of  murder  or  manslaughter  may 
have  been  perpetrated  (m). 

The  definition  interpreted  in  this  light  shows  that  not 
only  are  cases  of  felony  comprehended  but  cases  of  crim- 
inal negligence  should  also  be  investigated  (n). 

From  the  definition  certain  corollaries  follow  and  these 
two  were  laid  down  by  the  court  in  Lancaster  County  v. 
Mishler  (0).  "If  there  be  reasonable  ground  to  suspect 
'the  death  was  caused  by  violence  or  other  undue  means'  it 
becomes  the  duty  of  the  coroner  to  act.  If  he  has  no  ground 
for  suspecting  that  the  death  was  not  a  natural  one  it 
is  a  perversion  of  the  whole  spirit  of  the  law  to  compel 
the  county  to  pay  him  for  such  services."  These  corol- 


(i)    Burns  Case,  5  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  548  (1888). 

(k)  Metzger's  Inquest,  8  Dist.  573  (1899),  and  see  Burns  Case 
(supra),  and  Post,  Sect.  83,  note  (/). 

(/)    Ralston's  Petition,  9  Dist.  514;  s.  c.  30  P.  L.  J.  410  (1900). 

(m)  It  is  wrong  to  say,  as  was  said  in  Bender's  Case,  8  Pa.  C. 
C.  R.  664  (1890),  that  the  coroner's  jurisdiction  extends  only  to  the 
investigation  of  the  crimes  of  murder  and  manslaughter,  for  that 
limits  his  powers  to  cases  where  the  crime  has  been  committed,  which  is, 
as  we  shall  see,  altogether  too  narrow.  The  language  of  Bender's 
Case  is  very  careless  and  ill  considered. 

(n)  Miller  v.  Cambria  County,  29  Superior  Court,  166  (1905). 

(0)  100  Pa.  St.  624  (1882). 


182    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

laries  are  perfectly  correct,  but  their  application  is  as 
difficult  as  that  of  the  definition  itself.  But  this  will  be 
considered  later.  With  all  due  respect  to  the  definition 
laid  down  by  the  supreme  court,  it  is  submitted  that  a 
definition  much  more  easy  of  application  is,  that  the  ob- 
ject of  holding  an  inquest  is  to  ascertain  whether  a  crime 
(p)  has  been  committed  (q),  or  criminal  negligence  has 
caused  death  (r),  and  then  how  and  by  whom  the  injury 
was  inflicted  (s),  not  as  part  of  the  proceedings  leading 
to  the  conviction  of  the  culprit  but  as  a  separate  institu- 
tion for  the  protection  of  the  community  that  the  inno- 
cent may  be  exonerated  and  the  responsibility,  if  any,  for  the 
death,  located.  Perhaps  the  best  working  definition  the 
courts  have  given  us  appears  in  Walker  v,  McKean  (f). 
"The  purposes  of  an  inquest  are  first  to  ascertain  the 
cause  of  death,  second,  whether  or  not  any  one  is  crim- 
inally responsible  for  the  death  and  if  any  one  is  crimin- 
ally responsible,  to  procure  evidence  in  order  that  the  per- 
son responsible  may  be  brought  to  justice." 

If  we  bear  in  mind  the  true  object  of  an  inquest  we 
shall  find,  that,  for  failing  so  to  define  that  object,  our 
county  courts  have,  in  applying  the  law  to  specific  facts, 
reasoned  themselves  into  a  complete  circle  to  the  infinite 
discomfiture  of  coroners. 

Sect.  79.  The  coroner  must  be  called  upon  before 
he  is  obliged  to  act  in  any  way  (u).  Moreover,  if  the 
coroner  is  not  called  upon  he  has  no  right  to  interfere 
(v).  From  this  it  might  be  argued  that  as  the  township 
is  no  longer  amerced  for  not  notifying  the  coroner  he 
will  not  be  notified  and  will  therefore  be  powerless  to  in- 
vestigate where  investigation  is  most  needed.  To  this  the 
simple  answer  is  that  any  one  may  notify  the  coroner 

(P)  Murder  or  manslaughter,  Bender's  Case  (supra). 

R  n(i9)r Wing"  Vo  ™cKea£  \l  Dist  555 ;  s.  c.  26  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  126; 
Del.  Co.  431;  18  Mont.  88  (1901). 

(r)  Miller  v.  Cambria  County  (supra). 

(s)  Fayette  County  Coroner's  Return,  24  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  408  (1000) 
(0  31  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  664  (1905). 

(«)  Fayette  County  Coroner's  Return,  24  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  498  (1900). 
(v)  From  the  statute  of  4  Edward  I  down,  the  words  have  in- 
yanably  been     when  notified." 


THE  CORONER'S  INQUEST  183 

to  view  the  body  and  some  one  will  always  be  on  hand  to 
call  for  the  coroner  whenever  there  is  need  and  perhaps 
oftener.  Besides  it  is  indictable  to  bury  a  body  over  which 
an  inquest  ought  to  be  held  (w). 

When  the  coroner  (;r)  has  been  called  upon  to  act,  it 
is  his  duty  to  go  at  once  to  the  place  where  the  body 
is  and  investigate  the  circumstances  surrounding  the  death. 
Every  case  where  he  is  called  in  may  not  require  an  in- 
quest; the  coroner,  therefore,  should  make  a  preliminary 
examination  before  summoning  his  jury  (y).  This  idea 
is  quite  modern,  having  never  been  advanced  until  Lord 
Denman  proclaimed  it  in  1842,  in  the  case  of  the  Queen 
v.  The  Great  Western  Railroad  (z).  But  though  the  doc- 
trine is  a  new  one  it  is  a  wise  one.  Bearing  in  mind  the 
fact  that  the  inquest  is  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining 
whether  or  not  a  crime  has  been  committed,  it  seems  only 
reasonable  that  if  it  plainly  appears  what  was  the  cause  of 
death  and  that  no  crime  has  been  committed,  the  coroner 
should  so  return  and  hold  no  inquest.  But  unless  the 
facts  are  so  positive  as  to  exclude  the  possibility  that  a 
jury  of  six  men  could  find  there  was  a  crime  there  ought 
to  be  a  judicial  determination  of  those  facts.  The  county 
courts  have  tended  to  go  further  and  say  that  if  the  cor- 
oner finds  there  is  no  reasonable  suspicion  of  murder  or 
manslaughter  he  ought  to  abstain  from  summoning  a  jury 


(«;)  Burnett  v.  Lackawanna  County,  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  95 ;  s.  c.  i 
Lack.  Jur.  410  (1890)  ;  citing  i  Salk.  377  and  7  Modern,  10. 

(x)  Or  justice  of  the  peace  acting  as  coroner,  Grubb's  Case,  3 
Pa.  J.  L.  R.  78  (1904)  ;  Arnold's  Case,  4  Pa.  J.  L.  R.  49  (1905). 

(y)  Grubb's  Case  (supra}  ;  Arnold's  Case  (supra)  ;  Coroner's  In- 
quest, 28  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  428  (1903) ;  Pf out's  Case,  7  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  267 
(1889)  ;  Lee's  Case,  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  474  (1891)  ;  McFadgen  v.  Chester 
Co.,  10  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  124;  s.  c.  7  Mont.  149  (1891)  ;  and  this  was  so 
before  the  Act  of  1897  gave  them  fees  for  making  such  an  investigation. 
The  Queen  v.  Great  Western  R.  R.,  43  E.  C.  L.  R.  759  (1842)  ;  Burn's 
Case,  5  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  548  (1888);  Witmore's  Case,  3  Dist.  699;  s.  c. 
14  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  463  (1894)  ;  Approval  of  Coroner's  Inquests,  7  Dist. 
566;  s.  c.  20  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  660;  2  Docket,  65  (1896)  ;  Coroner's  Inquests, 
i  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  14;  s.  c.  3  Kulp,  451;  2  Del.  Co.  446;  3  Lane. 
L.  R.  70  (1885)  ;  and  see  Rambo  v.  Chester  Co.,  i  Chest.  Co.  414-416 
(1878)  ;  Hopkins  v.  Chester  Co.,  i  Chester  Co.  481  (1878)  ;  Jones'  Case, 
i  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  19  (1885). 

(*)  43  E.  C.  L.  R.  759  (1842). 


184    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

(a).  But  it  is  respectfully  submitted  this  carries  the  rule 
entirely  too  far.  It  is  not  the  object  of  the  inquest 
to  determine  merely  the  responsibility  for  a  given  crime, 
but  whether  or  not  a  crime  has  been  committed.  Cir- 
cumstances which  appear  but  innocent  may  bear,  on  close 
examination,  the  marks  of  felony  or  criminal  negligence; 
it  is  only  fair  to  the  community  that  they  should  have 
judicial  inspection.  Facts  may  not  appear  suspicious,  but 
it  is  proper  where  the  death  has  been  sudden  that  there 
should  be  a  judicial  determination  of  that  appearance. 
They  may  seem  all  right,  but  the  coroner's  jury  should 
declare  them  so,  before  the  community  is  completely  pro- 
tected. It  seems,  therefore,  too  extreme  to  say  that  where 
death  results  from  natural  causes  no  inquest  should  be 
held  nor  preliminary  examination  made.  Of  itself  the  rule 
is  correct  but  who  is  to  say  authoritatively  whether  or  not 
the  death  resulted  from  natural  causes  unless  it  be  done 
by  the  verdict  of  the  coroner's  jury. 

Previous  to  1897,  no  ^ees  were  provided  for  this  pre- 
liminary examination.  This  condition  led  to  abuses  clearly 
set  out  by  Hemphill,  J.,  in  McFadgen  v.  Chester  County 
(c).  "While  it  is  thus  seen  that  the  law  requires  the 
coroner  to  make  a  preliminary  investigation  (d)  as  to  the 
necessity  of  holding  an  inquest,  it  makes  no  provision  for 
compensating  him  for  such  service  unless  an  inquest  be 
held.  This  seems  unjust  (e),  for  such  investigations  take 
not  only  time,  but  often  require  the  coroner  to  travel  con- 
siderable distance  and  be  at  some  expense.  It  becomes 
therefore  an  inducement  for  him  to  determine  in  favor  of  an 
inquest  whether  necessary  or  not  as  he  otherwise  re- 
ceives no  compensation  for  his  time,  trouble  or 
outlay.  This,  however,  we  are  unable  to  rectify; 
the  power  to  do  lies  with  the  legislature  alone." 

(a)  The  Queen  v.  Great  Western  R.  R.    (supra)  ;  affirmed  as  to 
this   Commonwealth,   Burn's   Case    (supra),   and    Cochrane's    Case,    12 
Dist.  477;  s.  c.  27  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  282;  2  Pa.  J.  L.  R.  27  (1903). 

(b)  Fayette  County  Coroner's  Return,  24  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  498  (1900)  ; 
and  see  Metzger*s  Inquest,  8  Dist.  573  (1889). 

(c)  10  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  124;  s.  c.  7  Mont.  149  (1891). 

(d)  Witmore's  Case,  3  Dist.  669;  s.  c.  14  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  463  (1894). 

(e)  Contra,  Witmore's  Case  (supra). 


THE  CORONER'S  INQUEST  185 

It  took  six  years  for  the  legislature  to  learn  the  value  of 
these  suggestions.  The  facts  of  McFadgen  v.  Chester 
County  (/)  did  not  warrant  the  view  that  the  coroner  was 
often  induced  to  hold  inquests  unnecessarily  because  there 
was  no  fee  for  the  preliminary  examination.  In  that  case 
it  appeared  that  a  farmer's  man  who  was  perfectly  well 
one  night  was  found  dead  next  morning.  He  died  in  his 
bed  in  the  house  of  a  thoroughly  respectable  farmer.  The 
appearance  of  the  bed  showed  that  there  had  been  no 
struggle.  The  coroner  called  an  inquest  to  determine  these 
apparently  simple  facts.  On  submitting  his  inquest,  fees 
were  refused  him  on  the  ground  that  he  should  have  been 
satisfied  on  preliminary  investigation  that  the  death  was 
not  from  violence  or  undue  means  and  he  should  have  held 
no  inquest.  It  must  be  remembered  that  the  payment  of 
fees  is  a  very  different  question  from  the  approval  of  the 
inquest  and  while  the  county  court  may  have  the  right 
to  legislate  away  coroners'  rights  to  fees,  they  have  no 
right  to  determine  that  an  inquest  was  improperly  held,  for 
that  is  a  matter  of  the  coroner's  discretion,  as  we  shall 
see  later.  It  is,  therefore,  respectfully  submitted  that  the 
decision  in  McFadgen  v.  Chester  County  is  wrong.  The 
inquest  ought  to  have  been  held,  the  man  might  have  been 
killed  by  poison,  no  appearance  of  a  struggle  would  have 
been  made  in  his  room  by  that  subtle  agent,  and  the  re- 
spectability of  the  family  in  which  the  death  occurred 
ought  not  to  be  allowed  to  cover  up  the  possibility  that 
a  crime  might  have  been  committed  (gr).  The  case  shows 
how  erroneously  the  rule  is  applied.  It  is  true  that  where 
the  death  occurs  purely  from  natural  causes,  no  inquest 
should  be  held,  but  from  that  rule  it  by  no  means  follows 
that  because  the  jury  returns  a  verdict  of  death  by  natural 
causes  the  inquest  should  not  have  been  held.  Such 
an  application  of  the  rule  shows  that  the  court 
took  the  matter  up  from  the  wrong  end.  Viewed 


(/)  Supra. 

(g)  The  court  in  that  case  may  have  been  swayed  by  the  fact 
that  the  coroner  was  strongly  requested  to  hold  the  inquest,  and  there- 
fore did  not  make  a  judicial  decision  as  to  the  necessity  of  the  inquest. 
They  do  not  put  their  decision  on  that  ground,  however. 


186    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

in  the  light  of  the  verdict  it  was  easy  to  say  the  inquest 
was  unnecessary,  but  the  coroner  had  no  verdict  to  help 
him  determine  whether  or  not  to  hold  an  inquest.  On  the 
other  hand  it  has  been  held  that  if  the  coroner  in  his  pre- 
liminary examination  requires  the  aid  of  witnesses  (h) 
or  of  a  physician  (i)  he  must  pay  for  their  services  out  of 
his  own  pocket.  Such  decisions  are  iniquitous  toward  the 
community,  for  they  practically  force  the  coroner  always 
to  call  the  jury,  which  is  an  expense  to  the  county,  when- 
ever a  person  is  found  suddenly  dead.  In  marked  dis- 
tinction to  this  line  of  authorities  is  Arnold's  Case  (k) 
where  the  inquest  disclosed  the  decedent  died  a  natural 
death,  whereupon  it  was  held  that  was  the  very  purpose 
of  the  inquest.  A  question  arises  under  the  act  of  1897,  as 
to  how  far  the  deputy  coroner  or  justice  of  the  peace  is 
justified  in  taking  a  preliminary  examination.  It  has  been 
said  that  the  duties  imposed  by  the  act  are  judicial  and  can- 
not be  delegated  in  the  absence  of  statutory  authority  (/). 
That  may  be  so,  but  it  seems  on  careful  consideration  that 
no  duties  are  imposed  by  the  act,  but  the  only  change  made 
in  the  law  by  it  is  the  provision  of  fees  for  duties  which 
previously  had  to  be  performed  gratis  by  the  coroner  or 
deputy  or  justice  as  the  case  might  be.  It  may  be  true 
that  the  deputy  coroner  or  justice  cannot  be  paid  for  the 
services  they  perform  (w),  but  that  does  not  hinder  them 
in  the  performance  of  those  duties,  or  at  least  in  theory, 
ought  not  to. 

Sect.  80.  In  Pennsylvania  there  is  no  general  definition 
of  the  duties  and  powers  of  coroners.  "There  is  no  law 
that  defines  all  the  subjects  of  inquiry  for  the  coroner's 
inquest."  It  is  true  that  the  statutes  of  fourth  Edward  I, 
Sect.  2  (n)  and  third  Henry  VII  (a  portion  of  each  of  which 
statutes  are  in  force  with  us)  (o),  command  the  coroner 

(A)  Troutman  v.   Chambers,  9  Dist.  533    (1900). 

*  $,jyi2?er  v'  McKean  County,  11  Dist.  555;  s.  c.  26  Pa.  C.  C.  R. 
126;  8  Del.  Co.  431;  18  Mont.  88  (1901). 

(k)  4  Pa.  J.  L.  R.  49  (1905). 

(0  Per  Rice,  P.  ].,  in  Groves  Case,  26  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  449  (1900)  ; 
citing  Commonwealth  v.  Higgins,  5  Kulp,  271  (1889),  and  Fayette 
County  Deputy  Coroner's  Return,  20  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  641  (1898). 

(m)  See  Post,  Chapter  XII,  Sect.  102. 

(n)  The  court  probably  means  the  whole  act. 


THE  CORONER'S  INQUEST  187 

to  go  to  the  place  where  any  one  is  slain  or  has  suddenly 
died  and  inquire  into  the  cause  of  death,  but  it  has  been 
observed  that  these  statutes  being  wholly  directory  and  in 
affirmance  of  the  common  law  (/>)  the  coroner  is  not  thereby 
restrained  from  any  part  of  his  duty  not  mentioned  in  them 
which  was  incident  to  his  office  before  (q).  In  this  state 
the  general  understanding  of  his  duty  is  that  he  is  to  in- 
quire into  the  cause  of  all  violent  or  extraordinary  deaths 
(r).  At  first  blush  the  act  of  i6th  April,  1907,  P.  L.  92 
seems  to  give  us  a  general  definition  of  the  coroner's  du- 
ties. It  provides  "It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  coroner  and 
the  deputy  coroner  of  any  county  of  this  commonwealth 
where  the  cause  of  a  death  is  of  a  suspicious  nature  and 
character  to  cause  an  investigation  of  the  facts  concerning 
said  death  and  to  make  or  cause  to  be  made  such  an 
autopsy  as  the  facts  of  the  case  demand,  by  such  official." 
On  first  reading  the  act  is  wholly  unintelligable.  Does 
it  mean  that  hereafter  the  coroner  and  his  deputy  must 
both  sit  to  hold  inquests?  Evidently  that  is  not  the  in- 
tention of  the  legislature,  but  the  act  provides  that  they 
shall  both  sit,  not  that  either  may.  The  last  three  words 
mean  nothing  whatever,  and  by  no  contortion  of  grammar 
nor  statutory  construction  can  be  twisted  to  fit  into  any 
other  part  of  the  section.  But  looking  at  the  section  with 
a  broad  view  and  a  mind  freed  from  the  smallness  of  legal 
technicality  and  the  rules  of  English  syntax  the  act  is 
wholly  in  affirmance  of  the  common  law  and  neither  con- 
Co)  The  report  of  the  judges  in  1808,  3  Binney,  599-601,  speaks 
thus  of  4  Edward  I,  Section  2 :  "This  statute  is  in  force  except  those 
parts  which  state  the  coroners'  duties  in  the  following  points,  viz. : 
making  inquiry  as  to  the  property  of  any  person  or  seizing  the  property 
of  any  person,  treasure  that  is  found,  appeal  of  rape  or  of  wounds,  or  any 
other  appeals,  deodands  and  wreck  of  the  sea,  and  also  except  that  part 
which  provides  that  lands  shall  remain  in  the  king's  hands  until  the  lord  of 
the  fee  have  made  fine  of  it."  Thus  a  document  which  probably  never 
passed  Parliament  has  become  one  of  the  fundamental  laws  of  the  Com- 
monwealth of  Pennsylvania.  It  has  been  invariably  held  a  statute  of 
Pennsylvania,  Allegheny  v.  McClung,  53  Pa.  St.  482  (1866);  Coroner's 
Case,  32  L.  I.  142;  3.  c.  7  Leg.  Gaz.  125;  n  Phila.  387  (1875)  '>  Grubb's 
Case,  3  Pa.  J.  L.  R.  78  (1904) ;  Commonwealth  v.  Higgins,  5  Kulp,  269 
(1889)  ;  ex  parte  Schulz,  6  Wharton,  269  (1841). 

(P)  Per  Gibson,  C.  J.,  ex  parte  Schulz,  6  Wharton,  269  (1841). 
(g)  Ante  Sect.  27,  note  (e). 

(r)  Lancaster  v.  Dern,  2  Grant,  252  (1852)  ;  and  see  McFadgen  v. 
Chester  County,  10  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  124;  s.  c.  7  Mont.  149  (1891). 


188    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

fers  nor  removes  powers  which  the  coroner  did  not  pre- 
viously possess. 

It  may  be  said  then,  to  be  a  little  more  explicit,  that 
the  coroner's  inquest  should  be  held  in  cases  of  sudden  or 
violent  death  whether  it  takes  place  by  visitation  of  God, 
by  misfortune,  by  suicide  or  by  the  hand  of  another  in 
murder,  manslaughter,  self-defense,  or  by  accident  (s),  and 
all  those  who  die  in  prison  (t).  In  other  words  we  may 
say  the  duty  to  hold  the  inquest  arises,  I ,  where  the  coroner 
has  cause  to  suspect  («)  the  deceased  was  feloniously  de- 
stroyed (v) ;  2,  where  death  was  caused  by  violence  (w)  ; 
3,  where  he  has  any  ground  to  suspect  that  the  death  was 
an  unnatural  or  a  suspicious  one  (x}.  Indeed,  wherever 
there  is  a  possibility  that  the  death  was  caused  by  felony  or 
criminal  negligence. 

It  is  sometimes  said  "when  there  is  no  ground  for  sup- 
posing a  felonious  destruction  of  the  person  or  where  the 
surrounding  facts  and  circumstances  do  not  show  unlawful 
violence  or  where  there  are  no  suspicious  circumstances 
which  would  reasonably  lead  to  suspect  unlawful  violence, 
there  is  no  necessity  for  an  inquest  and  the  coroner  or 
justice  of  the  peace  should  so  return  in  accordance  with 
the  act  of  March  30,  1897"  (30  '>  or  where  there  is  no 
ground  to  suspect  the  death  was  an  unnatural  one  (z)  the 
same  course  should  be  pursued.  Let  us  consider  the  rule 

(j)  Per  Reeder,  J.,  Uhler  v.  Northampton  County,  i  Lehigh  Val- 
ley Law  Report,  213  (1886)  ;  and  see  Rentschler  v.  Schuylkill  County 
(supra}  ;  and  see  ante,  Sect.  69. 

(/)  Rentschler  v.  Schuylkill  County  (supra). 

(u)  Coroners'  Inquests,  28  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  428  (1903)  ;  Burn's  Case, 
5  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  548  (1881)  ;  Marvin  Shaft  Inquest,  3  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  10 
(1887). 

(v)  Northampton  County  v.  Innes,  26  Pa.  St.  156  (1856)  ;  Coroners' 
Inquests,  28  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  428  (1903);  Cochrane's  Inquest,  12  Dist. 
477!  s.  c.  27  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  282;  2  Pa.  J.  L.  R.  27  (1903)  ;  Marvin  Shaft 
Inquest  (supra). 

(w)  Commonwealth  v.  Harmon,  4  Pa.  St.  269  (1846)  ;  Cochrane's 
Inquest  (supra),  "violent  or  extraordinary";  Lancaster  v.  Dern  (supra), 
but  some  add  that  is  unlawful  violence";  Coroners'  Inquests  (supra), 
"by  another  person" ;  Marvin  Shaft  Inquest  (supra) . 

(x)  Coroners'  Inquests    (supra);   Marvin   Shaft  Inquest   (supra). 

(y)  Coroners'  Inquests,  28  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  428  (1903). 

(*)  Fayette  County  v.  Batton,  108  Pa.  St.  591  (1885)  ;  Cochrane's 
Case  (supra)  ;  Fayette  County  Coroner's  Return,  24  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  498 
(1900),  and  see  McFadgen  v.  Chester  Co.,  10  Pa.  C.  C  R.  124,  s.  c.  7 
Mont  149  (1891). 


THE  CORONER'S  INQUEST  189 

so  laid  down  and  its  application.  The  coroner  is  not  com- 
pelled nor  is  it  his  duty  to  inquire  of  every  sudden  death 
nor  every  time  he  is  called  upon  so  to  do  (a).  He  is  to  decide 
whether  or  not  he  should  act.  "The  duty  of  a  coroner  to 
hold  an  inquests  rests  on  sound  reason,  on  that  reason 
which  is  the  life  of  the  law.  It  is  not  a  power  to  be  ex- 
ercised capriciously  or  arbitrarily  against  all  reason.  The 
object  of  an  inquest  is  to  seek  information  and  obtain  and 
secure  evidence  in  case  of  death  by  violence  or  other  un- 
due means.  If  there  be  reasonable  ground  to  suspect  it 
was  so  caused,  it  becomes  the  duty  of  the  coroner  to  act. 
If  he  has  no  ground  for  suspecting  the  death  was  not  a 
natural  one  it  is  a  perversion  of  the  whole  spirit  of  the  law 
to  compel  the  county  to  pay  for  such  services"  (&). 

This  is  the  ruling  of  the  supreme  court  stated  at  length. 
There  are  certain  matters  which  must  be  considered  before 
we  can  thoroughly  appreciate  the  application  of  this  rule. 
The  coroner  is  himself  the  only  judge  of  the  necessity  of 
an  inquest  (c),  not  the  neighbors  and  relatives,  even  though 
the  court  disagree  with  him  (d)  and  his  finding  is  not  sub- 


Co)  Fayette  County  Coroner's  Return  (supra),  and  see  McFadgen 
v.  Chester  County  (supra). 

(b)  Per    Mercur,  J.,   Lancaster   Co.  v.   Mishler,    100   Pa.   St.  627, 
quoted  by  Hemphill,  J.,  in  McFadgen  v.  Chester  County  (supra),  and 
cited,  Coroners'  Inquests,  i  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  14;  s.  c.  3  Kulp,  451 ;  2  Del.  Co. 
446;  3  Lane.  L.  R.  70  (1885)  ;  Marvin  Shaft  Inquest,  3  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  10 
(1887)  ;  Pfout's  Case,  7  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  265  (1889)  ;  Bender's  Case,  8  Pa. 
C.  C.  R.  664  (1890) ;  Lee's  Case,  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  474  (1891)  ;  Watson  v. 
Beaver  County,  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  495  ( 1891 )  ;  Approval  of  Coroner's  In- 
quests, 7  Dist.  566;  s.  c.  20  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  660;  2  Docket,  65  (1896)  ;  Jones' 
Case,  i  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  14  (1885)  ;  Cochrane's  Case,  12  Dist.  477;  s.  c.  27 
Pa.  C.  C.  R.  282;  2  Pa.  J.  L.  R.  27   (1903);  Uhler  v.  Northampton 
County,  i  Lehigh  Valley  Law  Reporter,  213  (1886). 

(c)  Coroners'  Inquests  (supra)  ;  Winger  v.  McKean,  n  Dist.  555; 
s.  c.  26  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  126;  8  Del.  Co.  431 ;  18  Mont.  88  (1901)  ;  Fayette 
County  Coroner's  Inquest,  30  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  321 ;  s.  c.  35  P.  L.  J.  265 ; 
9  Del.  Co.  431    (1904)  ;  Fayette  County  Coroner's  Return,  24  Pa.  C. 
C.  R.  498   (1900);   Metzger's  Inquest,  8  Dist.  573   (1899),   (But  when 
the  justice  holds  inquest  the  decision  is  for  the  court,  ibid),  and  see 
Rambo  v.  Chester  Co.,  i  Chester  Co.  414-416  (1878)  ;  Hopkins  v.  Ches- 
ter County,  i  Chester  Co.  481  (1878). 

(d)  Fayette  County  Coroner's  Inquest,  30  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  321  ;  s.  c. 
35  P.  L.  J.  265;  9  Del.  Co.  431  (1904)  ;  but  when  some  decisions  go  so 
far  as  to  say  in  such  a  case  his  fees  are  to  be  refused,  and  one  that 
such  a  practice  is  to  be  encouraged,  Fayette  County  Coroner's  Return, 
24  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  498  (1900),  and  see  King  v.  Justices  of  Kent,  u  East. 
229  (1809),  we  see  it  is  pernicious. 


190    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

ject  to  judicial  criticism  or  review  (*)•  Although  the  cor- 
oner is  not  a  court  of  record  (/)  in  holding  his  inquest  he 
acts  in  a  judicial  capacity  (g)  and  his  discretion  must  not 
therefore  be  exercised  capriciously  (/&).  The  decision  is  a 
judicial  one,  and  must  be  based  upon  judicial  reasons  (i). 
It  would  seem  that  the  decision  should  be  one  of  law  not 
of  fact.  The  coroner  has  no  authority  to  employ  a  physician 
or  call  witnesses  (&)  to  assist  in  this  decision  (/). 

Sect.  81.  The  coroner  is  to  make  a  judicial  decision  as 
to  whether  or  not  an  inquest  is  to  be  held.  "Where  there  is 
cause  to  suspect  that  the  deceased  was  feloniously  destroyed, 
the  duty  of  the  coroner  is  plain  (m),  but  where  the  death 
was  caused  by  violence  or  other  undue  means  there  is  more 
difficulty  in  determining  when  to  hold  an  inquest"  (w).  All 
cases  of  sudden  death  do  not  need  investigation  (0).  There 
are  certain  elements  that  make  a  coroner's  inquest  neces- 
sary, but  the  absence  of  which  is  not  ipso  facto  a  reason  why 
the  inquest  should  not  be  held. 

i.  If  the  death  is  unnatural  an  inquest  should  be  had 
(/>),  but  if  it  appears  plainly  that  the  death  was  brought  on 


(e)  Weaver  v.  Northampton  County,  2  Lehigh  Valley,  408  (1887), 
and  see  ante,  Sect.  68. 

(/)  Commonwealth  v.  Higgins,  5  Kulp,  269  (1889). 

(g)  Lancaster  County  v.  Mishler,  100  Pa.  St.  624  (1882). 

(h)  Lancaster  County  v.  Mishler  (supra)  ',  Coroner's  Inquest,  28 
Pa.  C.  C.  R.  428  (1903)  ;  Lee's  Case  (supra)  ;  Fayette  County  v.  Bat- 
ton,  108  Pa.  St.  594  (1885)  ;  Coroners'  Inquests,  i  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  14;  s.  c. 
3  Kulp,  451;  2  Del.  Co.  446;  3  Lane.  L.  R.  70  (1885)  ;  McFadgen  v. 
Chester  County  (supra)  ;  Burns'  Case  (supra) ;  Cochrane's  Case 
(supra)  ;  Winger  v.  McKean  (supra)  ;  Miller  v.  Cambria,  29  Superior 
Court,  166  (1905). 

(»)  Winger  v.  McKean  (supra)  ;  but  see  Fayette  County  Coro- 
ner's Return,  24  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  498  (1900). 

(k)  Winger  v.  McKean  (supra). 

(1)  But  see  Cochrane's  Case,  12  Dist.  477;  27  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  282; 
2  Pa.  J.  L.  R.  27  (1903). 

(m)  Pfout's  Case,  7  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  265  (1889)  ;  Metzger's  Inquest, 
8  Dist.  573  (1899);  Approval  of  Coroners'  Inquests,  7  Dist.  566;  s.  c. 
20  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  660;  2  Docket,  65  (1896). 

(n)  Lee's  Case,  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  474  (1891)  ;  Coroners'  Inquests,  28 
Pa.  C.  C.  R.  428  (1903).  See  Jones  Case,  i  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  19  (1885). 

(0)  The  King  v.  The  Justices  of  Kent,  n  East,  229  (1809).  Apple- 
man's  Case,  7  Jurist,  201  (1909). 

(/»)  McFadgen  v.  Chester  County,  10  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  124;  s.  c.  7 
Mont.  Co.  149  (1891);  Coroner's  Inquest,  i  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  14;  s.  c.  3 
Kulp,  451;  2  Del.  Co.  446;  3  Lane.  L.  R.  70  (1885)  ;  Jones  Case,  I  Pa. 
C.  C  R.  19  (1885);  Winger  v.  McKean,  31  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  664  (1905). 
See  Metzger's  Inquest,  8  Dist.  573  (1899). 


THE  CORONER'S  INQUEST  191 

by  natural  causes  there  should  be  no  inquest  (q).  The  dis- 
tinction here  is  a  very  fine  one  and  one  on  which  the  courts 
have  been  very  apt  to  go  wrong.  It  is  a  distinction  which 
it  would  have  been  better  to  abandon  or  never  to  have  insti- 
tuted in  the  law.  Its  interpretation  depends  largely  on  the 
second  element. 

2.  If  the  death  was  caused  by  violence  it  is  submitted 
there  should  be  an  inquest  (r)  even  more  than  this,  in  cases 
where  violent  death  is  suspected  the  coroner  should  inquire 
(s~).  The  question  therefore  arise  what  is  "violence"?  The 
supreme  court  has  never  defined  it  though  they  have  illus- 
trated its  application  (*),  but  it  has  been  used  without  qual- 
ification in  almost  every  case  on  the  subject.  The  Century 
Dictionary  defines  "violence"  (M.)  as  force,  vehemence,  in- 
tensity, but  adds  a  legal  definition  we  need  not  here  regard. 
Bouvier  defines  it  (v)  as  "The  abuse  of  force.  That  force 
which  is  employed  against  common  right,  against  the  laws 


(q)  Winger  v.  McKean,  31  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  664  (1905)  ;  McFadgen  v. 
Chester  County  ( supra)  ;  Cochrane's  Inquest,  12  Disk  477 ;  s.  c.  27  Pa. 
C.  C.  R.  282;  2  Pa.  J.  L.  R.  27  (1903)  ;  Miller  v.  Cambria  County,  29 
Superior  Court,  166  (1905).  It  is  doubtful  in  spite  of  this  case  whether 
a  death  due  to  negligence  should  not  be  investigated,  Fayette  County 
Coroner's  Return,  24  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  498  (1900);  and  see  Metzger's  In- 
quest (supra). 

(r)  Commonwealth  v.  Harmon,  4  Pa.  St.  269  (1846),  affirming 
6  P.  L.  J.  120;  Pf out's  Case,  7  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  265  (1889)  ;  Northampton 
County  v.  Innes,  26  Pa.  St.  156  (1856),  affirming  3  P.  L.  J.  644;  Alle- 
gheny County  v.  Shaw,  34  Pa.  St.  301  (1859)  >  and  see  7  P.  L.  t.  217; 
14  Lane.  Bar.  101 ;  30  P.  L.  J.  361;  39  L.  I.  459;  12  W.  N.  C.  312; 
Lancaster  County  v.  Mishler,  100  Pa.  St.  624;  Coroner's  Inquest,  28 
Pa.  C.  C.  R.  428  (1903)  ;  Fayette  County  v.  Batton,  108  Pa.  St.  591 
(1885);  Jones  Case,  i  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  19  (1885);  Metzger's  Inquest,  8 
Dist.  573  (1899)  ;  Fayette  County  Coroner's  Inquest,  30  Pa.  C.  C.  R. 
321 ;  s.  c.  35  P.  L.  J.  265 ;  9  Del.  Co.  431  (1904)  ;  Coroner's  Inquest,  i  Pa. 
C.  C.  R.  14;  s.  c.  3  Kulp,  451 ;  2  Del.  Co.  446;  3  Lane.  L.  R.  70  (1885)  ; 
but  see  Rambo  v.  Chester  Co.,  I  Chest.  Co.  414-416  (1878)  ;  Hopkins  v. 
Chester  Co.,  i  Chest.  Co.  481  (1878) ;  McFadgen  v.  Chester  Co.,  10  Pa. 
C.  C.  R.  124;  7  Mont.  149  (1891)  ;  Witmore's  Case,  3  Dist.  699;  14  Pa. 
C.  C.  R.  463  (1894)  ;  Lee's  Case,  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  470  (1891).  It  is  not 
necessary  that  the  death  should  be  violent  and  sudden,  violent  is  enough. 
Lancaster  v.  Dern,  2  Grant,  262  (1852)  ;  but  sudden  alone  will  not  suf- 
fice. McFadgen  v.  Chester  County,  10  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  124;  7  Mont.  149 
(1891).  Some  cases  say  violence  or  other  undue  means.  Fayette 
County  v.  Batton,  108  Pa.  St.  594  (1885) ;  Lee's  Case,  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  474 
(1891). 

(s)  Commonwealth  v.  Harman,  4  Pa.  St.  269  (1846);  Northamp- 
ton Co.  v.  Innes  (supra)  ;  Allegheny  Co.  v.  Shaw  (supra). 

(t)  Lancaster  v.  Dern,  2  Grant,  262   (1852). 

(«)  Vol.  8,  p.  6761. 

(v)  Vol.  2,  p.  1197. 


192    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

and  against  public  liberty.     Violence  is  synonymous  with 
physical  force  and  the  two  are  used  interchangeably  in  rela- 
tion to  assaults,  by  elementary  writers  on  criminal  law." 
It  is  submitted  this  definition  is  too  narrow.     Words  and 
Phrases  says  (w)  "violence  according  to  law  dictionaries  is 
synonymous  with  physical  force."    According  to  the  Amer- 
ican and  English  Encyclopedia  of  Law,  it  is  a  general  term 
and  includes  all  sorts  of  force.     This  definition  most  nearly 
corresponds  with  the  connotation  of  the  word  to  the  ordi- 
nary mind.     Laymen,  by  violence,  do  not  understand  some- 
thing criminal.     Even  lawyers  say  a  man  was  thrown  with 
violence  to  the  pavement,  connoting  mere  negligence.   More- 
over the  special  acts  show  us  the  real  meaning  of  the  word 
in  the  eye  of  the  law  of  this  commonwealth.    The  Luzerne 
County  Act  (.r)  specifically  limits  the  word  "violence"  by 
the  word  "unlawful"  with  the  intent  of  limiting  the  coro- 
ners' powers  in  just  the  way  that  Bouvier's  definition  of 
"violence"  would.     If  "violence"  referred  only  to  unlawful 
acts,  it  would  be  unnecessary  to  say  "unlawful  violence." 
The  Westmoreland  County  act  (y)  uses  the  identical  words. 
In  Philadelphia  County  we  have  two  acts  in  pari  passu  giv- 
ing the  coroner  a  broader  scope  than  those  allowed  by  the 
other  acts  above  referred  to.     In  these  acts  the  word  "vio- 
lence" is  used  without  qualification  in  a  way  that  would  be 
senseless  if  the  word  refers  to  criminal  violence  only  (#). 
It  has  been  said  the  supreme  court  have  given  us  no  defini- 
tion of  violence;  they  have,  however,  illustrated  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word.     In  Lancaster  v.  Dern  (a)  a  woman  was 
run  into  by  a  sleigh,  one  of  the  shafts  of  which  penetrated 
her  brain  causing  her  death  three  days  afterwards.     These 
circumstances  the  supreme  court  said  constituted  violence 
within  the  meaning  of  the  common  law. 

The  county  courts  have  continually  overlooked  the  illus- 


(w)  Vol.  8,  p.  7327. 

(x)  30  March,  1866,  Sect.  I,  P.  L.  391 ;  quaere,  whether  all  these 
acts  are  not  superseded  by  the  Act  of  16  April,  1907,  P.  L.  92? 

(y)  18  March,  1869,  Sect,  i,  P.  L.  404. 

(z)  See  Acts  of  16  April,  1845,  Sect.  9,  P.  L.  539,  and  24  March, 
1867,  Sects,  i,  2  and  3,  P.  L.  532. 

(a)  2  Grant,  262  (1852). 


THE  CORONER'S  INQUEST  193 

tration  given  in  Lancaster  v.  Dern  and  have  consistently  at- 
tempted to  limit  the  meaning  of  the  word  "violence."  In 
Jones  Case  (b)  the  court  took  the  whole  phrase  "violence 
and  undue  means"  (c),  coupled  them  together  and  declared 
they  refer  to  some  unlawful  act.  In  point  of  time  the  next 
case  was  Burn's  Case  (d),  which  went  beyond  any  previous 
decision,  saying  of  violence,  "it  has  reference  to  human 
agency  and  includes  the  idea  of  responsibility  for  crime." 
This  was  immediately  followed  in  Pfout's  Case  (e),  where 
the  question  of  violence  was  discussed  and  not  one  word 
said  about  a  limitation  upon  the  meaning  of  the  word.  Lee's 
Case  (/)  is  decided  in  exactly  the  same  words  as  Burn's 
Case.  In  Witmore's  Case  (g),  the  rule  at  first  laid  down  in 
Jones  Case  was  adopted  and  this  has  been  followed  (h) 
by  the  superior  court  («').  By  far  the  best  reasoned  and 
soundest  opinion  is  that  in  Uhler  v.  Northampton  County 
(£).  Reeder,  J.,  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  court,  which 
is  worthy  of  quotation  at  length. 

"The  attorney  for  the  defendant,  however,  contends 
that  the  word  Violence'  as  used  by  the  supreme  court  in 
that  case  is  not  to  be  understood  in  its  broad  and  literal 
sense,  but  that  it  has  in  that  connection  a  restricted  mean- 
ing, viz.,  violence  at  the  hands  of  another.  This  view  would 
be  giving  both  clauses  of  the  sentence  the  same  interpreta- 
tion, for  when  the  death  has  been  caused  by  violence  at  the 
hands  of  another  the  coroner  'would  have  just  reason  to  sus- 
pect that  the  deceased  had  been  feloniously  destroyed.'  So 
that  when  the  supreme  court  say,  'or  when  death  has  been 
caused  by  violence,'  they  mean  something  different  from  that 
which  has  just  been  previously  said  by  them.  Therefore  the 
interpretation  contended  for  by  the  attorney  for  the  defend- 

(b)  i  Pa.  C  C.  R.  19  (1885). 

(c)  Taken  from  Lancaster  County  v.  Mishler. 

(d)  5  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  548  (1888);  cited  with  approval  in  Coroner's 
Inquest,  28  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  428  (1903). 

(<?)  7  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  265   (1889). 

(/)  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  474  (1891). 

(g)  3  Dist.  699,  s.  c.  14  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  463  (1894). 

(h)  Metzger's  Inquest,  8  Dist.  573  (1899). 

(*)  Miller  v.  Cambria  County,  29  Superior  Court,  166  (1905). 

(*)  i  Lehigh  Valley,  213  (1886). 


194    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

ant  cannot  be  correct.  Besides  his  interpretation  of  the  mean- 
ing of  the  language  used  would  be  in  contravention  of  the 
Statute  of  4th  Henry  VII,  the  other  in  accord  with  it.  The 
supreme  court  cite  with  approbation  in  support  of  the  declar- 
ation that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  coroner  to  hold  an  inquest, 
the  case  of  the  Commonwealth  v.  Harman,  4  Barr.  269, 
where  Gibson,  C.  J.,  says  There  ought  to  be  inquests  held 
in  all  cases  of  death  by  violence'  an  opinion  founded  upon 
reason  and  public  policy. 

"The  obvious  cause  of  death  may  be  the  falling  of  a 
derrick  or  a  tree  suspended  across  a  railroad  track,  but 
until  an  investigation  is  made  and  the  fact  regularly  and 
judicially  determined  how  do  we  know  but  what  the  derrick 
was  made  to  fall  or  the  tree  suspended  for  the  mere  pur- 
pose of  taking  of  life,  or  that  there  was  such  gross  negli- 
gence on  the  part  of  some  one  as  to  constitute  a  crime.  The 
only  protection  the  public  has  in  such  cases  is  a  coroner's 
inquest  for  the  purpose  of  determining  first,  whether  any 
one  was  guilty,  and  second  who?  Suppose  a  man  walking 
along  a  public  street  in  a  city  should  be  struck  by  a  falling 
brick  or  timber  from  a  building  in  process  of  erection,  would 
the  coroner  be  excluded  from  holding  an  investigation,  be- 
cause the  manner  of  death  was  obvious  or  would  it  be  his 
duty  to  investigate  whether  the  missile  was  directed  by  a 
hand  intent  upon  taking  life  or  whether  death  resulted  from 
criminal  negligence?  The  question  answers  itself.  I  can 
see  no  distinction  between  that  case  and  the  two  inquests 
referred  to  in  the  case  stated,  where  in  one  instance  death 
resulted  from  the  falling  of  a  part  of  a  derrick  and  in  the 
other  from  a  tree  suspended  across  a  railroad  track,  I  have 
not  discussed  the  case  when  the  inquest  was  held  on  the 
body  of  a  suicide  for  the  reason  that  the  statute  of  4  H.  7 
so  clearly  makes  it  the  specific  duty  of  the  coroner  to  hold 
inquests  in  all  such  cases  as  to  make  discussion  superfluous." 

The  reasoning  of  this  case  is  so  conclusive  that  it  is  re- 
spectfully submitted  that,  in  spite  of  the  overwhelming 
weight  of  authority  to  the  contrary,  the  case  is  right  and  it 
is  confidently  asserted  that  if  the  case  should  be  brought  be- 
fore the  supreme  court,  that  tribunal  would  follow  the  doc- 
trine laid  down  in  Commonwealth  v.  Harman,  followed  in 


THE  CORONER'S  INQUEST  195 

Lancaster  v,  Dern,  and  interpreted  and  expounded  in  Uhler 
v.  Northampton  County  and  not  the  ill  considered  decisions 
which  seem  to  have  been  dictated  by  too  reverend  a  care 
for  the  county  pocket  book,  even  though  they  have  the 
sanction  of  a  decision  of  the  superior  court. 

Sect.  82.  We  have  already  noticed  that  in  Luzerne  and 
Westmoreland  counties  (/)  there  are  special  acts  regulating 
the  duties  of  coroners  these  acts  are  practically  identical. 
The  Luzerne  County  Act  (m)  reads  as  follows: 

"That  it  shall  not  be  the  duty  of  the  coroner  or  justice 
of  the  peace  of  the  county  of  Luzerne  to  hold  an  inquest  on 
the  body  of  any  deceased  person,  unless  the  said  deceased 
person  shall  have  died  of  unlawful  violence  or  other  unlaw- 
ful acts  at  the  hands  of  some  other  person  or  persons,  or 
there  be  such  strong  suspicion  of  such  violence  or  other  un- 
lawful acts  as  to  make  an  inquest  necessary,  which  violence 
and  suspicion  of  the  same  shall  be  certified  to  by  the  coroner 
or  justice  holding  such  inquest  and  also  by  the  jurors  under 
their  oaths  and  be  made  a  part  of  the  return  of  such  inquest, 
and  if  the  said  coroner  or  justice  shall  hold  an  inquest  in 
any  other  case  he  and  the  jurors  shall  not  be  entitled  to  any 
compensation  therefor." 

This  act  has  been  held  to  be  in  affirmance  of  the  com- 
mon law  («)  but  it  is  respectfully  submitted  that  the  most 
casual  glance  at  the  common  law  shows  that  such  is  not  the 
case.  The  rule  laid  down  by  this  statute  is  not  and  never 
was  the  common  law.  Under  this  statute  we  find  that  in 
Howarth's  Case  (0)  a  justice's  inquests  were  not  approved 
because  it  did  not  appear  that  there  had  been  unlawful  vio- 
lence by  another  nor  strong  suspicion  thereof.  In  Smith's 
Case  (p)  the  court  went  further;  under  this  act  they  say  the 

(/)  The  Act  of  18  March,  1869,  Sect,  i,  P.  L.  404,  relating  to 
Westmoreland  County,  was  extended  by  the  Act  of  9  March,  1872,  Sect. 
I,  P.  L.  294,  to  Cambria,  and  by  the  Act  of  24  March,  1871,  Sect,  i, 
P.  L.  450,  to  Carbon. 

(m)  Act  of  30  March,  1866,  Sect  i,  P.  L.  391,  when  Lackawanna 
County  was  erected  in  1878,  it  was  subject  to  this  act,  having  been 
part  of  Luzerne.  See  the  Act  of  16  April,  1907,  P.  L.  92. 

(»)  Burnett  v.  Lackawanna  County,  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  95.  *•  c-  * 
Lack.  Jur.  410  (1890). 

(o)  2  Luzerne,  L.  R.  119  (1873). 

(/>)  4  Lane.  L.  R.  302  (1887). 


1%    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

occasion  for  holding  the  inquest  should  appear  in  the  return 
and  the  simple  statement  "there  was  strong  suspicion  of 
violence  such  as  to  make  an  inquest  necessary"  is  not  enough. 
These  are  the  words  of  the  act  and  the  decision  must  be 
interpreted  to  mean  that  the  certification  required  by  the  act 
must  be  one  of  the  facts  not  of  conclusions.  But  even 
though  the  act  of  1866,  is  applicable  to  this  case  it  is  difficult 
to  see  how  the  court  can  reconcile  such  a  decision  to  the 
general  rule  of  law  that  the  coroner  acts  in  a  judicial  capacity 
and  it  is  in  his  discretion  to  determine  the  necessity  for  the 
holding  of  an  inquest.  Of  course  under  this  act  Stoecker's 
Inquest  (</)  follows  as  a  matter  of  course;  where  a  man  was 
killed  while  trying  to  make  a  coupling  on  a  railroad  the 
official  interposition  of  the  coroner  was  unnecessary. 

In  Philadelphia  County  quite  a  different  state  of  affairs 
exists.  The  act  of  1845  (r)  provides  that  it  shall  not  be  the 
duty  of  the  coroner  to  hold  an  inquest  over  a  deceased  per- 
son unless  they  died  a  violent  death,  leaving  the  word  "vio- 
lent" unexplained  (s).  It  would  seem  difficult  to  under- 
stand the  exact  meaning  of  this  act  in  view  of  that  failure 
to  explain,  but  it  has  been  superseded  in  this  respect  by  the 
act  of  1867  (0-  That  act  provides  "that  it  shall  be  the  duty 
of  the  coroner  of  the  city  and  county  of  Philadelphia  to 
hold  an  inquest  on  the  body  of  any  deceased  person  who 
shall  have  died  of  violent  death  or  whose  death  shall  be 
sudden,  provided  that  such  sudden  death  be  after  an  illness 
of  less  than  twenty- four  hours  and  that  no  regular  practicing 
physician  shall  have  been  in  attendance  within  said  time,  or 
that  suspicious  circumstances  shall  render  the  same  neces- 
sary, which  said  suspicions  shall  be  first  sworn  to  by  one 
or  more  citizens  of  said  city."  It  would  be  difficult  to  frame 
an  act  which  would  more  completely  define  the  real  duty 
of  the  coroner  in  the  present  system  of  government.  The 

(q)  5  Kulp,  487  (1890). 

(r)  16  April,  1845,  Sect.  9,  P.  L.  539. 

(j)  This  act  was  extended  to  Armstrong  County  by  the  Act  of 
8  March,  1855,  P.  L.  64,  but  that  act  was  repealed  by  the  Act  of  12 
March,  1867,  Sect,  i,  P.  L.  404. 

(/)  Act  of  22  March,  1867,  Sect,  i,  P.  L.  532.  The  Act  of  i  May, 
1905,  P.  L.  330,  is  supposed  to  supersede  that  act,  but  the  latter  is 
beyond  doubt  unconstitutional. 


THE  CORONER'S  INQUEST  197 

whole  object  is  covered.  Only  one  possible  criticism  can 
be  made  of  this  act.  It  defines  "sudden  death"  to  mean 
death  resulting  after  an  illness  of  less  than  twenty-four 
hours.  It  seems  unfortunate  that  a  hard  and  fast  rule 
should  be  laid  down  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  "sudden." 
But  if  a  hard  and  fast  line  must  be  drawn  twenty- four  hours 
is  the  very  best  place  to  draw  it.  It  would  therefore  seem 
that  this  act  with  this  single  exception  is  in  affirmance  of 
the  common  law.  If  this  be  so  we  are  necessarily  brought 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  Luzerne  County  act  is  in  detri- 
ment of  the  common  law,  for  the  two  are  unalterably  op- 
posed to  each  other.  The  Philadelphia  act  admitting  not 
only  death  by  criminal  negligence,  but  by  any  negligence 
lest  the  negligence  be  criminal.  The  act  of  May  I,  1905, 
Sect.  8,  P.  L.  330,  even  if  constitutional,  does  not  alter  these 
duties,  but  in  substance  re-enacts  the  statute  of  1867  (w). 

Sect.  83.  The  courts  have  dealt  profusely  with  this 
point.  Where  the  death  is  enveloped  in  mystery  they  tell  us 
it  is  proper  to  hold  an  inquest  (77).  Metzger's  Inquest  («;) 
affirms  this  proposition,  e  converse  saying. 

"So  long  as  there  are  no  suspicious  circumstances 
hanging  around  the  finding  of  the  dead  body  or  the  death  of 
the  individual  the  coroner  need  not  act,  neither  should  he 
act  nor  any  one  else  act  for  him."  The  statement  here  para- 
phrases that  in  Coroners'  Inquests  in  1885  (;r)  where  the 
court  held  "the  coroner  should  hold  an  inquest  where  the 
death  was  caused  by  violence  or  where  there  is  any  ground 
to  suspect  the  death  of  any  person  was  an  unnatural  one  or 
an  unaccountable  one,  or  a  suspicious  one  and  e  converse." 
"Where  there  is  cause  to  suspect  that  the  deceased  was 
feloniously  destroyed  (y)  the  duty  of  the  coroner  is  plain," 


(u)  It  is  doubtful  whether  the  Act  of  April  16,  1907,  P.  L.  92, 
repeals  these  acts,  that  statute  does  not  in  terms  repeal  local  acts. 

(v)  Pf out's  Case,  7  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  265  (1889). 

(w)  8  Dist.  573  (1899),  citing  Coroners'  Inquests  i  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  14; 
3.  c.  3  Kulp,  451 ;  2  Del.  Co.  446;  3  Lane.  L.  R.  70  (1885). 

(*)  I  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  14;  s.  c.  3  Kulp,  451 ;  2  Del.  Co.  446;  3  Lane. 
L.  R.  70  (1885)  ;  and  see  Jones'  Case,  i  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  19  (1885)  ;  Mc- 
Fadgen  v.  Chester  County,  10  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  124;  s.  c.  7  Mont.  149 
(1891)  ;  Metzger's  Inquest,  8  Dist.  573  (1899). 

(y)  Fayette  County  v.  Batton,  108  Pa.  St.  591  (1885):  Pfout's 
Case  (supra)  ;  Jones'  Case  (supra)  ;  Lee's  Case,  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  474 


198    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

or  as  was  said  in  Northampton  County  v.  Innes  (z)  "it  is 
obviously  proper  for  the  coroner  to  hold  an  inquest  super 
visum  corporis  wherever  there  is  cause  to  suspect  the  de- 
ceased was  feloniously  destroyed"  (a).  It  is  well  enough  to 
say  as  we  have  already  observed  "where  the  death  has  been 
sudden  and  the  cause  unknown  and  the  circumstances  create 
the  suspicion  of  guilt"  (6)  that  it  is  important  to  hold  an  in- 
quest. It  is  equally  true  that  "the  fact  that  one  dies  in  his 
home  surrounded  by  his  family  does  not  prevent  the  coroner 
from  holding  an  inquest  super  visum  corporis,  if  he  suspects 
foul  play"  (c).  But  some  cases  limit  the  occasion  of  in- 
quest to  cases  where  felony  is  suspected  (d).  There  can 
however  be  cavil  at  this  statement,  for  it  narrows  the  object 
of  the  inquest,  which  it  must  be  remembered  is  as  important 
to  establish  innocence  as  to  investigate  guilt  and  should  be 
invoked  against  a  common  nuisance  or  criminal  negligence, 
even  though  it  does  not  amount  to  felony. 

Sect.     84.     If  the  cause  of  death  is  known  beyond 


(1891).  Approval  of  Coroners'  Inquests,  7  Dist.  566;  s.  c.  20  Pa.  C. 
C.  R.  660;  2  Docket,  65  (1896)  ;  Metzger's  Inquest  (supra)  ;  Coroners' 
Inquests,  28  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  428  (1903)  ;  but  not  in  every  case,  Winger  v. 
McKean,  31  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  664  (1905)  ;  e  converso  where  there  is  no 
reason  to  suspect  there  should  be  no  inquest,  Watson  v.  Beaver  County, 
8  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  495  (1891),  citing  Lancaster  County  v.  Mishler,  100  Pa. 
St.  624  (1883). 

(*)  26  Pa.  St.  156  (1856),  3  P.  L.  J.  644. 

(a)  Northampton  County  v.  Innes   (supra)  ;  Lancaster  County  v. 
Mishler  (supra)  ;  Pickett  v.  Erie  County,  19  W.  N.  C.  60;  s.  c.  3  Pa. 
C.  C.   R.  23    (1887)  ;   Coroners'  Inquests,   i    Pa.   C.  C.  R.   14;  s.  c.  3 
Kulp,  451;  2  Del.   Co.  446;  3  Lane.   L.   R.   70    (1885);   Jones'   Case 
(supra)  ;  Burns'  Case,  5  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  549  (1888)  ;  Pfout's  Case,  7  Pa. 
C.  C.  R.  265  (1889)  ;  Approval  of  Coroners'  Inquests,  7  Dist.  566;  5.  c. 
20  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  660;  2  Docket,  65  (1896). 

(b)  Burns'  Case  (supra)  ;  Coroners'  Inquests,  28  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  428 
{1903)  ;  Lee's  Case   (supra)  ;  Metzger's  Inquest    (supra)  ;   Cochrane's 
Inquest,  12  Dist.  477;  s.  c.  27  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  282;  2  Pa.  J.  L.  R.  27  (1903). 

(c)  Northampton  County  v.  Innes,  26  Pa.  St.  156  (1856),  3  P.  L. 
644. 

(d)  Pfout's  Case  (supra)  ;  Approval  of  Coroners'  Inquests,  7  Dist. 
566 ;  s.  c.  20  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  660 ;  2  Docket,  65  ( 1896)  ;  Cochrane's  Inquest 
(supra)  ;  citing  Winger  v.  McKean  (supra)  ;  Fayette  County  Coroners' 
Return,  24  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  498  ( 1900)  ;  Fayette  County  Coroner's  Return, 
30  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  321 ;  s.  c.  35  P.  L.  J.  265 ;  9  Del.  Co.  431  (1904)  ;  Bender's 
Case,  8  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  664  (1890)  ;  McFadgen  v.  Chester  County,  10  Pa. 
C.  C.  R.  124;  s.  c.  7  Mont.  149  (1891)  ;  Witmore's  Case,  3  Dist.  699; 
s.  c.  14  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  463  (1894),  says  murder  or  manslaughter,  and  so 
does  re  Missiner,  20  Mont.  200;  s.  c.  3  Pa.  J.  L.  R.  88;   18  York,  115 
(1904),  citing  Burns'  Case  (supra),  and  see  Lancaster  County  v.  Mish- 
ler, 100  Pa.  St.  627  (1882). 


THE  CORONER'S  INQUEST  199 

question,  it  seems  probable  that  there  should  be  no  autopsy 
(e).  But  it  is  doubtful  in  spite  of  the  authorities  whether 
or  not  an  inquest  should  be  held  where  the  facts  are  all 
known.  The  last  words  given  us  by  the  supreme 
court  are  to  the  effect  that  it  should  be  (/).  Yet  that  was 
a  case  of  unnatural  death.  Where  it  is  evident  that  the 
death  was  caused  by  disease  or  other  natural  causes  it  seems 
reasonable  that  the  inquest  should  be  omitted  (g).  But 
many  cases  say  that  where  the  cause  of  death  is  not  in  doubt 
there  should  be  no  inquest  (/t).  Thus  in  a  case  where  a 
man  of  seventy  eight  died  while  under  the  care  of  his  phy- 
sician, in  his  own  home  and  surrounded  by  his  family,  the 
jury  having  found  a  verdict  that  he  died  of  a  paralytic  stroke, 
the  coroner  was  denied  his  fee  (&).  In  the  Marvin  Shaft 
Case  (/),  several  miners  were  suffocated  by  having  the 
roof  of  the  slope  on  which  they  were  working  fall  in  on  the 
air  shaft  thus  shutting  off  the  air. 

The  jury  found  that  had  the  operator  made  a  second 
opening  to  the  face  where  the  men  were  they  would  not 
have  died.  The  court  held  that  this  was  an  improper  sub- 
ject lor  an  inquest  but  that  since  the  facts  were  unknown 
to  the  coroner  it  was  within  his  discretion  to  hold  the  in- 
quisition. It  must  be  remembered  in  this  connection  that 
the  whole  subject  of  the  coroners  relations  to  mining  ac- 


(*)  Fayette  County  Coroner's  Return,  30  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  321 ;  s.  c. 
35  P.  L.  J.  265;  9  Del.  Co.  431  (1904),  where  a  fee  for  an  autopsy  was 
refused  because  the  cause  of  death  was  known. 

(/)  Fayette  County  v.  Batton,  108  Pa.  St.  591  (1885)  ;  contra,  Q. 
S.  Fayette  County,  No.  117,  December  Session,  1883,  MS. 

(0)  Watson  v.  Beaver  County,  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  495;  27  W.  N.  C. 
469  (1891)  ;  Cochrane's  Case,  12  Dist.  477;  s.  c.  27  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  282; 
2  Pa.  J.  L.  R.  27  (1903)  ;  and  see  11  Phila.  387;  s.  c.  7  Leg.  Gaz.  125; 
22  P.  L  J.  151 ;  32  Leg.  Int.  142  (1875). 

(*)  Marvin  Shaft  Inquest,  3  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  10  (1887)  ;  Witmore's 
Case,  3  Dist.  699;  s.  c.  14  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  463  (1894)  ;  Pf out's  Case,  7  Pa. 
C.  C.  R.  265  ( 1889)  ;  Approval  of  Coroners'  Inquests,  7  Dist.  566 ;  s.  c. 
20  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  <$6o;  2  Docket,  65  (1896)  ;  Cochrane's  Case  (supra); 
Coroners'  Inquests,  i  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  14;  s.  c.  3  Kulp,  451;  2  Del.  Co. 
446;  3  Lane.  L.  R.  70  (1885)  ;  Jones'  Case,  i  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  19  (1885) ; 
Metzger's  Inquest,  8  Dist.  373  (1899);  and  see  Arnold's  Case,  4  Pa. 
J.  L.  P.  49  (1905);  Hopkins  v.  Chester  Co.,  I  Chester,  481  (1878); 
Rambo  v.  Chester  Co.,  i  Chester,  414-416  (1878). 

(fc)  Lancaster  County  v.  Mishler,  100  Pa.  St.  624  (1882). 

(/)    3  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  10  (1887). 


200    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

cidents  has  been  legislated  upon  (w),  and  the  statute  law 
may  have  affected  the  decision. 

In  Burn's  case  this  matter  is  thus  summed  up  (»). 
"But  where  the  cause  of  death  is  known  as  suicide  and  no 
living  man  is  liable  for  the  crime  or  results  from  accident 
so  that  no  crime  has  been  perpetrated  in  such  cases  there 
is  no  necessity  for  official  investigation  (0).  And  where 
the  cause  of  death  is  unknown,  but  there  are  no  marks  of 
external  violence  of  other  circumstances  creating  reasonable 
grounds  to  suspect  felony  official  investigation  accomplishes 
nothing." 

This  carries  the  rule  altogether  too  far.  In  the  first 
place  if  we  are  to  hold  no  inquest,  where  no  living  man  is 
responsible  for  the  crime  none  should  be  held  where  a  man 
commits  murder  and  suicide.  Negligence  under  these  words 
should  never  be  investigated  nor  should  poisoning  unless 
the  poisoner  was  a  bungler.  The  court  in  this  case  would 
open  the  door  for  innumerable  secret  felonies.  This  cannot 
be  the  law. 

Let  us  consider  this  question.  The  opinion  above  quoted 
might  be  thus  epitomized.  If  "the  inquest  would  only  de- 
clare known  facts,  there  should  be  no  inquest"  (/>).  Furst 
P.J.  of  Centre  County  has  carried  the  doctine  there  express- 
ed to  its  logical  conclusion.  He  says  (q).  "If  the  facts 
are  known  the  inquest  would  simply  declare  what  is  previ- 
ously known"  and  he  trimuphantly  adds  if  officers  would 
observe  the  rules  he  has  laid  down  there  would  be  fewer 
inquests.  Surely  man  is  growing  confident  of  man's  upright- 
ness. What  are  known  facts?  Rumor  is  more  rapid  than 
the  express  train.  Known  facts  from  a  legal  standpoint 
can  only  be  facts  judicially  declared.  But  suppose  we  con- 
ceive the  idea  of  a  man  killed  by  a  railroad  train  before  a 


(m)   See  Chapter  on  Mines. 

(n)  5  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  548  (1888)  ;  and  see  Coroners'  Inquests,  28  Pa. 
C.  C.  R.  428  (1903)  ;  Lee's  Case,  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  474  (1891)  ;  Pfout's 
Case,  7  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  265  (1889);  Witmore's  Case  (supra);  Metzger's 
Case  (supra). 

(0)  The  court  entirely  overlooks  the  Act  of  3  Henry  VII,  which 
specifically  provides  suicide  shall  be  investigated. 

(p)  See  Witmore's  Case,  3  Dist.  699;  s.  c.  14  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  463 
(1804). 

(q)  In  Pfout's  Case,  7  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  265  (1889). 


THE  CORONER'S  INQUEST  201 

multitude  of  people.  The  facts  are  known.  Surely  this  is 
merest  accident.  But  man  must  be  confident  of  man's  in- 
tegrity, if  it  is  not  to  be  judicially  determined  that  it  was 
merest  accident.  It  might  have  been  caused  by  malice  pre- 
pense. The  rule  sought  to  be  laid  down  here  carried  to  its 
logical  conclusion  is  this.  If  the  facts  are  known  there  need 
be  no  inquest :  only  where  the  death  is  surrounded  by  mystery 
should  the  inquest  be  held.  The  next  step  is  a  complete  re- 
ductio  ad  absurdum.  If  the  cause  of  death  is  known,  i.  e.,  if 
there  are  any  witnesses  who  can  prove  what  the  real  cause 
of  death  was  (for  id  cerium  est)  there  should  be  no  inquest. 
But  of  the  cause  of  death  is  unknown,  i.  e.,  if  there  are  no 
witneses,  an  inquest  could  by  no  possibility  establish  any- 
thing. If  there  are  no  marks  of  violence  on  the  body  no 
inquest  should  be  held.  Of  course  the  case  of  a  poisoning 
occurs  to  the  mind  proving  this  statement  completely  falla- 
cious. Perhaps  the  word  "known"  is  at  the  bottom  of  the 
whole  trouble.  What  is  the  real  meaning  of  the  courts  when 
they  say  if  the  facts  are  "known"?  The  best  answer  has 
already  been  given,  in  law  no  facts  are  "known"  until  they 
are  judicially  determined. 

The  real  secret  of  the  trouble  is  unwittingly  summed 
up  in  Metzgers  Inquest  (r)  thus:  "The  practice  has  become 
quite  too  common  in  this  county  of  holding  inquests  every 
time  a  death  occurs  not  entirely  usual  in  its  circumstances. 
When  the  cause  of  death  is  not  doubtful  the  coroner  ought 
not  to  put  the  county  to  the  expense  of  an  inquest." 

Sect.  85.  Were  we  for  a  moment  to  lay  aside  more 
conservative  thoughts  and  adopt  the  rule  asserted  as  we  have 
seen  in  the  last  section  with  so  much  confidence  it  necessa- 
rily follows  that  suicide  should  never  be  investigated  and 
such  has  been  said  to  be  the  law  (s).  It  is  respectfully 
submited  that  it  is  to  stretch  the  rule  too  far  to  even  say 


(r)  8  Dist.  573  (1899). 

(j)  Witmore's  Case,  3  Dist.  699;  s.  c.  14  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  463  (1894)  ', 
Metzger's  Inquest,  8  Dist.  573  (1899);  Cochrane's  Case,  12  Dist.  477; 
s.  c.  27  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  282;  2  Pa.  ].  L.  R.  27  (1903)  ;  citing  Winger's 
v.  McKean,  II  Dist.  555  (1901)  ;  Burns'  Case,  5  Pa.  C  C.  R.  543  (1888)  ; 
Coroners'  Inquests,  28  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  428  (1903)  ;  Lee's  Case,  9  Pa.  C.  C. 
R.  474  (1891)  ;  Pf out's  Case,  7  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  265  (1889).  We  needs  must 
ask  is  the  Act  of  3  Henry  VII  still  in  force? 


202    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

"where  it  is  quite  evident  that  the  death  has  been  caused 
by  disease,  or  other  natural  cause,  suicide,  pure  accident  or 
negligence  of  the  deceased  no^inquest  is  needed  and  if  held 
no  fees  should  be  allowed  therefor"  (£).  We  cannot  go  so 
far  as  to  say,  "The  case  of  suicide  does  not  require  investi- 
gation", even  though  we  qualify  the  statement  by  saying 
"if  the  facts  are  known  which  clearly  shown  the  case  to  be 
suicide  it  is  improper  to  summon  an  inquest"  (w). 

While  it  has  been  said  that  suicide  alone  is  insuffici- 
ent ground  for  holding  an  inquest  (v)  and  that  where  the 
facts  surrounding  a  suicide  are  not  suspicious  no  inquest 
should  be  held  (w).  It  seems  less  incorrect  to  say  that 
suicide  may  or  may  not  be  a  proper  subject  for  investiga- 
tion (*) ;  and  it  is  carrying  the  rule  too  far  to  say  that  if 
a  man  is  subject  to  melancholy  his  apparent  suicide  should 
not  be  investigated  (y).  It  opens  the  door  for  secret  crimes 
to  go  uninvestigated.  It  is  not  to  the  purpose  to  say  the 
grand  jury  may  inquire.  So  it  may,  but  if  the  coroners  in- 
quest is  to  be  good  for  anything,  the  coroner  should  be  very 
suspicious  of  fair  appearances. 

But  after  all  this  discussion  form  decided  cases  we  come 
to  the  specific  enactment  of  parliament  held  by  the  supreme 
court  to  be  still  valid  in  Pennsylvania,  the  act  third 
Henry  VII,  which  expressly  provides  that  all  cases  of  sui- 
cide shall  be  investigated.  We  may  look  at  the  act  and  then 
at  the  cases  and  draw  what  conclusions  we  please.  We  may 


(0  Watson  v.  Beaver  Co.,  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  495;  s.  c.  27  W.  N.  C.  469 
(1891)  ;  and  see  n  Phila.  387;  7  Leg.  Gaz.  125;  22  P.  L.  J.  151 ;  32  Leg. 
Int.  142.  Approval  of  Coroners'  Inquests,  7  Dist.  566;  s.  c.  20  Pa. 
C.  C.  R.  660;  2  Docket,  65  (1896). 

(u)  Metzger's  Case  (supra)  ;  Witmore's  Case  (supra) ;  Marvin 
Shaft  Inquest,  3  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  12  (1887)  ;  Lee's  Case  (supra)  ;  Watson 
v.  Beaver  County  (supra)  ;  Pfout's  Case,  7  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  265  (1889)  ; 
Grubb's  Case,  3  Pa.  J.  L.  R.  79  (1904). 

(v)  Cochrane's  Case,  12  Dist.  477;  s.  c.  27  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  282;  2  Pa. 
J.  L.  R.  27  (1903)  ;  and  see  Witmore's  Case,  3  Dist.  699;  s.  c.  14  Pa. 
C.  C.  R.  463  (1894)  ;  and  cases  there  cited.  But  Uhler  v.  Northampton 
County,  I  Lehigh  Valley,  213  (1886),  holds  suicide  alone  is  a  sufficient 
ground  for  an  inquest,  and  the  Act  of  3  Henry  VII  specifically  pro- 
vides it  shall  be  investigated. 

(w)  Cochrane's  Case  (supra)  ;  Pfout's  Case  (supra). 

(x)  Pfout's  Case  (supra).  Approval  of  Coroners'  Inquests,  7  Dist. 
566;  s.  c.  20  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  660;  2  Docket,  65  (1896). 

(y)  Ai  was  said  in  Grubb's  Case  (supra),  and  Pfout's  Case 
(supra). 


THE  CORONER'S  INQUEST  203 

ask  any  or  all  of  the  following  questions.  Have  our  county 
courts  in  the  face  of  the  supreme  court  the  right  to  over- 
rule and  make  obsolete  statutes  as  old  as  the  commonwealth 
itself?  Shall  we  be  guided  by  supreme  court  cases  in  1841 
or  county  court  cases  in  1911?  Has  the  act  of  third  Henry 
VII  in  force  in  Pennsylvania  from  1688  to  1880,  suddenly 
become  obsolete  of  its  own  great  age?  And  what  shall  we 
think  of  the  county  court  which  deliberately  overlooks  the 
statutes  of  the  Commonwealth?  or  shall  we  say  out  of  char- 
ity they  did  not  know  there  was  such  an  act?  What  weight 
shall  we  give  to  the  other  utterances  of  courts  so  heedless  ? 

Leaving  these  thoughts  as  unprofitable  to  our  inquiry 
we  lay  it  down  with  exceeding  confidence  in  the  face  of  the 
overwhelming  weight  of  county  court  authority  to  the  con- 
trary that  suicide  should  always  be  investigated  except  in 
such  places  where  special  acts  prohibit  it  and  we  rely  for 
authority  solely  on  the  statute  law  of  the  Commonwealth, 
on  the  act  of  third  Henry  VII  which  was  in  force  in  Penn- 
sylvania in  1808  and  has  never  been  repealed  (z). 

Sect.  86.  From  the  rule  that  if  the  facts  are  known 
no  inquest  should  be  held  the  county  courts  have  drawn 
another  conclusion  which  must  be  noticed.  They  say  an 
accidental  death  is  not  one  to  be  inquired  of  by  inquest  (a). 
It  may  be  true  that  where  one  is  killed  in  the  presence  of 
witnesses  by  stepping  in  front  of  a  moving  train  or  while 
trying  to  board  one  no  inquest  should  be  held  (&.)  Every 
death  on  the  railroad  tracks  certainly  does  not  call  for  an 
inquest.  But  the  rule  has  been  laid  down  more  broadly; 
that  an  accidental  death  should  not  be  investigated.  It  has 
been  said  that  no  inquest  should  have  been  held  where  one 
died  in  convulsions  due  to  congestions  of  the  lungs  (c) 


(*)  See  Uhler  v.  Northampton  County,  I  Lehigh  Valley,  213 
(1886),  and  the  report  of  the  judges,  3  Binney,  604  (1808).  The  Act  of 
16  April,  1907,  P.  L.  92,  being  in  affirmance  of  the  common  law,  does 
not  repeal  this  part  of  the  Act  of  3  Henry  VII. 

(a)  Marvin  Shaft  Inquest,  3  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  10  (1887)  ;  Walker  v.  Mc- 
Kean,  31  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  664  (1905);  citing  Coroners'  Inquests,  i  Pa.  C. 
C  R.  14;  s.  c.  3  Kulp,  451;  2  Del.  Co.  446;  3  Lane.  L.  R.  70  (1885)  ; 
contra,  Uhler  v.  Northampton  County,  I  Lehigh  Valley,  213  (1886). 

(ft)  Arnold's  Case,  4  Pa.  J.  L.  R.  49  (1905)  ;  contra,  Lee's  Case, 
9  Pa.  C.  C  R.  474  (1891). 

(c)  Smith's  Case,  4  Lane.  L.  R.  302  (1887). 


204    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

where  one  was  accidentally  killed  by  an  engine  or  a  car  or 
was  found  in  his  bed  with  no  marks  of  violence,  where  one 
might  be  said  to  have  died  by  visitation  of  God,  was  acciden- 
tally run  over  by  cars,  or  by  a  coal  train  while  sitting  or  lying 
on  the  track  (d)  found  dead  in  his  bed  of  heart  disease  (e) 
found  lying  on  the  railroad  track  with  a  broken  spine  and 
nothing  to  show  how  it  happened  (/)  or  where  the  death 
was  caused  by  a  stroke  of  lightning  (<?),  a  fit  of  apoplexy, 
a  fit  of  epilepsy,  or  where  it  was  caused  by  falling  down 
stairs  in  a  drunken  fit  (h)  or  by  a  fall  of  coal  (t)  or  where 
one  was  caught  in  machinery  (fc)  or  killed  by  the  kick  of 
a  horse  (/)  or  falling  from  a  tree  (m)  or  by  being  burned 
to  death  because  unable  to  escape  from  a  burning  building 
or  where  one  met  death  by  falling  between  two  cars  while 
trying  to  make  a  coupling  and  being  run  over  (n)  or  drown- 
ing even  though  the  jury  could  not  say  whether  it  was  ac- 
cidental or  suicidal  (0)  or  from  inhaling  or  swallowing  fur- 
nace gas  while  sleeping  (/>),  washed  away  by  a  well  known 
flood,  committed  suicide  (had  had  melancholy),  bathing 
and  accidentally  drowned,  drank  himself  to  death  or  where 
one  was  helping  to  load  a  boiler  and  it  slipped  and  crushed 
him  (<?)  or  suicide  (unqualifiedly)  (r}.  But  all  these  are 
common  pleas  or  quarter  sessions  cases.  In  Lancaster 


(d)  Lee's  Case  (supra). 

(e)  Lee's   Case    (supra) ;    McFadgen   v.   Chester   County,   10   Pa. 
C.  C.  R.  124;  s.  c.  7  Mont.  149  (1891). 

(/)•  Lee's  Case  (supra). 

(g)  Lee's  Case  (supra)  ;  Coroners'  Inquests,  i  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  14;  s.  e. 
3  Kulp,  451;  2  Del.  Co.  446;  3  Lane.  L.  R.  70  (1885). 

(h)  Lee's  Case  (supfra)  ;  Coroners'  Inquests  (supra). 

(i)    Jones'  Case,  i  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  19  (1885). 

(k)  Crosby's  Case.  19  P.  L.  J.  192;  3  Pitts.  425  (1872);  citing  7 
E.  &  B.  805;  Burns'  Case,  5  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  548  (1888);  Coroners'  In- 
quests, 28  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  428  (1903). 

(/)  Burns'  Case  (supra)  ;  Coroners'  Inquests  (supra)  ;  Lee's  Case 
(supra). 

(m)  Coroners'  Inquests  (supra)  ;  Lee's  Case  (supra). 

(n)  Stoecker's  Case,  3  Kulp,  487   (1890). 

(0)  McFadgen  v.  Chester  County,  10  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  124;  s.  c.  7 
Mont.  149  (1891). 

(p)  Burns'  Case  (supra). 

(q)  Pf out's  Case,  7  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  265  (1889). 

(r)  Witmore's  Case,  3  Dist.  699;  s.  c.  14  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  463  (1894). 


THE  CORONER'S  INQUEST  205 

County  v.  Dern  (s)  the  one  supreme  court  case  a  marked 
difference  appears.  A  woman  was  run  into  by  a  sleigh,  one 
of  the  shafts  of  which  penetrated  into  her  brain  causing 
death  three  days  later,  this  was  decided  to  be  a  proper  case 
for  an  inquest.  The  more  recent  case  of  Uhler  v.  North- 
ampton County  (t)  seems  alone  in  following  the  ruling  of 
the  supreme  court,  holding  that  where  a  man  was  killed 
by  a  falling  derrick  or  where  a  falling  tree  struck  the  engi- 
neer of  a  train  an  inquest  should  be  held. 

In  this  connection  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  the  act  of 
third  Henry  VII  expressly  provides  that  cases  of  death  ex 
visitatione  die  shall  be  investigated. 

Sec.  87.  It  was  held  in  a  recent  case  that  where  the 
fact  is  plain  that  the  death  was  caused  by  the  negligence 
of  the  deceased  the  corner  has  no  jurisdiction  («).  It  may 
be  so.  On  the  other  hand  if  there  is  reasonable  ground  for 
suspicion  of  criminal  negligence,  it  is  proper  to  hold  an  in- 
quest (z>).  In  Lee's  Case  it  was  said  that  wherever  a  man 
was  found  on  the  railroad  track  with  marks  of  having  been 
run  over  upon  him,  it  was  proper  to  hold  an  inquest,  but  in 
that  case  fees  were  refused  the  coroner  upon  that  very 
state  of  facts.  In  Arnold's  Case  (TV)  we  meet  with  the  de- 
lightful inconsistency  that  where  it  is  a  question  merely  of 
who  was  negligent  the  parties  should  not  tax  the  county  with 
an  inquest,  but  should  investigate  at  their  own  expense,  but 
in  the  same  opinion  it  is  said  that  where  the  negligence  is 
such  that  some  public  good  would  be  acquired  by  the  in- 
quest it  should  be  held,  implying  that  there  could  be  a  case 
of  negligence  causing  death  of  no  interest  to  the  common 
weal. 

This  ruling  makes  the  court  the  judge  of  the  necessity 
of  holding  inquests.  It  is  a  well  known  rule  that  the  coroner 
is  the  only  judge  of  that  necessity  (x).  Some  cases  add  that 

(s)  2  Grant,  262  (1852)  ;  and  so  an  explosion  was  held  ground 
for  an  inquest,  Allegheny  v.  McClung,  53  Pa.  St.  482  (1866). 

(I)  I  Lehigh  Valley  Law  Reporter,  213   (1886). 

(«)  Walker  v.  McKean  County,  31  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  664  (1905). 

(v)  Lee's  Case,  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  474  (1891) ;  Walker  v.  McKean 
County  (supra). 

(w)  4  Pa.  J.  L.  R,  49  (1005). 

(*)  Weaver  v.  Northampton  Co.,  2  Lehigh  Valley,  408  (1887). 


206    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

the  relatives  and  friends  of  the  decased  are  not  the  judges 
(y)  but  even  as  to  that  there  is  a  conflict  of  opinion.  It  was 
said  in  Lee's  Case  (2)  "should  any  person,  company  or  cor- 
poration desire  that  an  inquest  should  be  held  where  the  law 
does  not  require  the  coroner  to  hold  one,  it  should  be  done/' 
but  the  person  desiring  the  inquest  should  pay  the  costs. 
The  same  rule  is  intimated  in  Arnold's  Case  (a)  where  it  is 
said  the  parties  interested  should  inquire  at  their  own  ex- 
pense, but  does  not  indicate  whether  or  not  the  public 
coroner  to  hold  one.  Although  this  is  the  most  recent 
Coroners  Inquests  (&)  does  not  go  quite  so  far,  but  is  per- 
haps more  reasonable.  "I  do  not  think  that  justices  of  the 
peace  have  the  same  right  to  exercise  the  coroner's  judicial 
functions  as  the  coroner  himself  has,"  and  so  if  the  relatives 
and  neighbors  demand  and  will  pay  for  an  inquest  he  must 
hold  one.  As  recently  as  Cochrane's  Case  (c)  it  has  been 
determined  that  where  an  employer  desires  to  have  it  defi- 
nitely determined  that  no  negligence  of  his  contributed  to 
the  death  he  can  upon  paying  the  costs  of  inquest  require  the 
coroner  to  hold  one.  Although  this  is  the  most  recent 
effusion  on  the  subject  we  cannot  think  it  right.  It  has  been 
repeatedly  held  that  a  request  of  any  individual  is  insufficient 
ground  for  holding  an  inquest  (d}  and  we  cannot  but  agree 
with  Wickham,  P.  J.,  in  Watson  v.  Beaver  County  (<?)  :  "I 
cannot  assent  to  the  proposition  that  one  who  wants  an  in- 
quest can  have  it  by  paying  for  it,"  for  "it  is  no  part  of  the 
coroner's  duty  to  hold  inquests  for  the  vindication  of  individ- 


(y)  Walker  v.  McKean  Co.  (supra)  ;  Fayette  County  Coroner's 
Return,  24  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  498  (1900)  ;  Coroners'  Inquests,  i  Pa.  C.  C.  R. 
14;  s.  c.  3  Kulp,  451 ;  2  Del.  Co.  446;  3  Lane.  L.  R.  70  (1885)  ;  Winger 
v.  McKean  Co.,  n  Dist.  555;  s.  c.  26  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  126;  8  Del.  Co.  431; 
18  Mont.  88  (1901)  ;  Marvin  Shaft  Inquest,  3  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  10  (1887)  ; 
McFadgen  v.  Chester  Co.,  10  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  127;  s.  c.  7  Mont.  149  (1891). 

GO  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  474  (1891)  ;  and  see  Pf out's  Case,  7  Pa.  C.  C.  R. 
265  (1889). 

(a)  4  Pa.  J.  L.  R.  49  (1905). 

(&)  i  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  14;  s.  c.  3  Kulp,  451;  2  Del.  Co.  446;  3  Lane. 
L.  R.  70  (1885). 

(c)  12  Dist.  477  s.  c.  27  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  282;  2  Pa.  J.  L.  R.  27  (1903)- 

(d)  Approval  of  Coroners'  Inquests,  7  Dist.  566;  s.  c.  20  Pa.  C.  C. 
R.  660;  2  Docket,  65   (1896);  Metzger's  Inquest,  8  Dist.  573   (1899)  ', 
Fayette  County  Coroner's  Return,  24  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  498  (1900). 

(e)  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  495;  s.  c.  27  W.  N.  C.  469  (1891). 


THE  CORONER'S  INQUEST  207 

uals"  (/).  In  agreeing  with  this  proposition  we  are  not  at 
variance  with  the  theory  that  the  inquest  is  as  much  to 
establish  innocence  as  guilt.  Wherever  guilt  may  possibly 
have  crept  in  there  should  be  an  inquest,  as  we  have  already 
observed  death  by  negligence  ordinarily  calls  for  investiga- 
tion, lest  it  be  criminal  negligence.  The  only  place  where 
this  proposition  applies  is  in  cases  where  as  limited  by  the 
law  as  we  have  already  seen  it,  no  inquest  should  be  held. 
To  get  the  full  intent  of  the  dicta  above  cited  it  might  be 
well  to  quote  more  at  large  from  Judge  Wickham's  opinion. 
In  part  he  says : — 

"A  coroner  when  holding  an  inquest  is  in  the  fullest 
sense  a  judicial  officer.  He  and  his  jury  constitute  a  court 
to  which  in  the  eye  of  the  law  is  attached  considerable  dig- 
nity and  which  is  not  in  the  market  for  hire.  It  would  be 
scarcely  more  reprehensible  for  a  court  of  quarter  sessions 
to  employ  itself  in  holding  moot  courts  to  instruct  the  law 
students  and  others  who  might  be  willing  to  pay  the  ex- 
penses of  the  proceedings  than  it  would  be  for  a  coroner  to 
summon  jurors  to  hold  inquests  not  required  in  the  interests 
of  public  justice,  but  solely  induced  by  the  promise  of  com- 
pensation from  private  sources.  A  coroner  engaging  in  such 
extra  judicial  work  and  accepting  reward  therefor  from 
private  persons  would  be  guilty  of  a  high  misdemeanor. 
Inquests  should  not  be  held  save  for  public  purposes  and  at 
public  expense." 

(/)  Per  Hemphill,  J.,  10  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  124;  s.  c.  7  Mont.  149  (1891). 


CHAPTER  VII. 
THE  CORONER'S  INQUEST — HOW  HELD. 

Sect.  88.  The  last  chapter  was  devoted  to  a  consider- 
ation of  the  coroners  inquest  from  the  standpoint  of  neces- 
sity. We  have  now  determined  when  the  inquest  should  be 
held.  The  next  inquiry  to  which  our  attention  is  necessarily 
directed  is  as  to  how  the  inquest  is  held.  There  is  practically 
no  authority  on  this  point  in  Pennsylvania.  The  inquest 
is  held  just  as  it  always  has  been  held.  But  how?  Let  us 
first  consider  the  time  and  place  of  holding  the  inquest.  In 
the  first  place  the  coroner  is  not  bound  to  act  unless  notified 
and  this  he  may  be  by  one  or  more  of  several  classes  of 
persons : 

1.  His  own  officers  (a). 

2.  The  police  or  peace  officers. 

3.  Register  of  marriages,  births  and  deaths. 

4.  Friends  and  relations  of  the  deceased. 

5.  A  medical  practitioner  who  attended  during  life  or 
was  summoned  after  death. 

6.  Strangers  or  neighbors  living  in  the  neighborhood. 
When  the  coroner  is  notified  that  one  has  been  slain 

or  is  suddenly  dead  he  should  go  forthwith  to  the  place 
where  the  body  is  and  make  his  preliminary  investigation. 
When  he  has  determined  that  an  inquest  is  necessary  he 
should  summon  his  jury  setting  a  day  for  the  inquest  as  soon 
as  may  be  after  the  death  (6)  and  the  view  should  be  held 
if  possible  while  the  body  is  in  the  same  position  and  other 


(a)  This  classification  is  found  in  Wellington  on  Coroners,  Vol.  2, 
page  6,  but  we  cannot  agree  that  the  coroner  may  act  when  summoned 
only  by  his  own  officers.  Qui  faciat  per  aliam  faciat  per  se  and  the 
coroner  has  no  right  to  act  of  his  own  initiative. 

(&)  But  not  on  Sunday. 

(c)  Per  Hemphill,  J.,  10  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  124;  s.  c.  7  Mont.  149  (1891). 
(208) 

(d)  Under  fourth  Edward  I;  Pickett  v.  Erie  County,  19  W.  N.  C. 
605;  s.ic.  3  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  23  (1887).     See  Lancaster  v.  Dern,  2  Grant, 
252  (1852);  McFadgen  v.  Chester  County,  10  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  124;  s.  c. 
7  Mont.  149  (1891)  ;  Rentschler  v.  Schuylkill  County,  i  Schuylkill  Legal 
Record,  289  (1880). 

(208) 


THE  CORONER'S  INQUEST  209 

circumstances  as  when  the  person  died  (c).  The  inquest 
should  if  possible  be  held  at  the  place  where  the  body  is 
found  (d),  but  this  does  not  mean  at  the  very  particular 
spot  where  the  body  is  but  in  general  at  the  place  (<?).  The 
coroner's  inquest  must  be  super  visum  corporis  (/),  and  if 
the  body  be  not  found  there  can  be  no  inquest. 

The  question  then  arises  what  is  a  body.  Suppose  only 
a  part  of  the  body  can  be  found.  It  seems  reasonable  if 
enough  of  the  body  can  be  brought  before  the  inquest  to 
identify  it  as  a  part  of  a  human  body  there  is  enough  to 
give  the  coroner  jurisdiction  to  hold  his  inquest  "super  visum 
corporis." 

It  is  not  necessary  that  the  whole  evidence  be  presented 
while  the  body  lies  before  the  jury.  It  is  undoubtedly  a 
misdemeanor  to  bury  a  body  upon  which  an  inquest  ought  to 
be  held  without  first  sending  for  the  coroner  to  view  it  (g), 
and  it  is  also  a  misdemeanor  to  allow  a  body  to  putrefy 
without  sending  for  the  coroner. 

But  the  body  here  referred  to  must  be  the  body  of  a 
person,  therefore  the  coroner  cannot  inquire  if  the  body  be 
that  of  a  monster  or  an  unborn  infant  (gg).  Wellington  tells 
us  (h)  that  by  the  common  law  of  England  every  infant 
is  presumed  to  be  born  dead  until  the  contrary  is  shown,  but 
this  does  not  seem  reasonable  and  there  is  no  basis  for  the 
remark  in  authority.  We  may  therefore  say  that  the 
coroner  is  justified  in  holding  an  inquest  upon  the  body  of 
an  infant  unless  it  is  shown  the  infant  was  born  dead. 

Sect.  89.  The  coroner  or  justice  of  the  peace  in  his 
absence  may  exhume  the  body  without  leave  of  court  (i) 
if  thereunto  requested  by  the  district  attorney  (k)  in  order 

(<?)  Ex  parte  Schulz,  6  Wharton,  269  (1841);  Pickett  v.  Erie 
County,  19  W.  N.  C.  60;  s.  c.  3  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  23  (1887)  ;  Rentschler  v. 
Schuylkill  County,  I  Schuylkill  Legal  Record,  289  (1880)  ;  Marvin 
Shaft  Inquest,  3  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  10  (1887)  ;  Burnett  v.  Lackawanna 
County,  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  95;  s.  c.  i  Lack.  Jur.  410  (1890). 

(/)  Burnett  v.  Lackawanna  County  (supra). 

(g)  Per  Gibson,  C.  J.,  in  Allegheny  v.  Watts,  3  Pa.  St.  462  (1846), 
and  Burnett  v.  Lackawanna  (supra). 

(gg)  Decision  of  Coroner  Jermon  of  Philadelphia  reported  Phila- 
delphia Evening  Bulletin,  August  10,  1906. 

(h)  The  King's  Coroner,  Vol.  II,  p.  5. 

(»)  Allegheny  County  v.  Shaw,  34  Pa.  St.,  307  (1859). 

(*)  Pickett  v.  Erie  County,  19  W.  N.  C,  60,  s.  c.  3  Pa.  C.  C.  R., 
23  (1887). 


210    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

to  make  an  investigation.  Indeed  he  may  do  so  whenever 
the  occasion  requires  (/).  In  the  only  recent  supreme  court 
case  on  the  whole  subject  of  coroners  (m),  it  was  held  that 
the  district  attorney  may  exhume  the  body  of  one  slain  and 
make  his  own  examination  and  that  the  evidence  so  pro- 
cured should  be  admitted  on  the  trial  for  murder  without 
regard  to  what  the  coroner  had  done  or  omitted  to  do.  The 
case  decided  as  it  is  in  the  supreme  court  is  beyond  doubt  the 
law  of  the  commonwealth  until  it  is  reversed,  but  it  is  certain 
that  it  is  a  most  remarkable  and  sweeping  piece  of  judicial 
legislation.  It  degrades  the  coroner's  office  by  making  it 
worse  than  useless,  giving  to  another  officer  all  the  powers 
of  inquisition  previously  possessed  by  the  coroner  and  creates 
a  new  system  of  inquest  heretofore  unheard  of.  The  dis- 
trict attorney  however  may  (n}  and  should  aid  the  coroner. 
He  should  make  all  necessary  investigations  at  the  time  of 
the  inquest. 

"In  this  enlightened  age  a  coroner  who  would  consign 
to  the  grave  the  body  over  which  he  had  held  an  inquest 
without  availing  himself  of  the  lights  which  the  medical 
science  has  placed  within  his  reach  would  in  most  cases  fall 
short  of  what  his  official  duty  requires.  A  thorough  ex- 
amination aided  by  professional  skill  is  in  general  absolutely 
necessary  to  the  proper  administration  of  justice.  Without 
such  examination,  groundless  suspicions  may  be  entertained 
and  prosecutions  commenced  at  once  cruel  to  the  objects  of 
them,  expensive  to  the  county  and  wasteful  of  the  talents 
of  all  persons  engaged  in  them.  But  this  is  not  all.  With- 
out an  examination  of  the  body  recently  after  death  and  a 
complete  demonstration  from  the  evidence  thus  in  the 
power  of  the  commonwealth  that  the  death  was  caused  by 
violence  the  guilty  agent  cannot  be  convicted.  When  from 
an  omission  to  employ  a  physician  to  examine  the  body  the 
cause  of  death  is  left  in  doubt  the  accused  must  in  general 


(/)  Per  Gibson  C.  J.  in  Allegheny  County  v.  Watts,  3  Pa.  St.,  462 
(1846). 

(m)  Commonwealth  v.  Grether,  204  Pa.  St.,  203  (1902). 

(n)  Hopkins  v.  Chester  County,  I  Chester  481,  s.  c.  14  Lane.  Bar 
88  (1878). 


THE  CORONER'S  INQUEST  211 

escape  because  in  all  cases  of  doubt  he  has  a  right  under  the 
law  to  demand  an  acquittal  (0)." 

Those  cases  are  correct  which  say  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
coroner  to  employ  a  physician  if  necessary  (/>). 

When  is  it  necessary? 

"Where  a  woman  attended  by  a  physician  suddenly 
died  and  the  coroner  held  an  inquest  super  visum  corporis 
and  employed  a  physician  to  make  a  post  mortem  which 
proved  the  woman  died  by  natural  causes.  Held,  neverthe- 
less the  county  is  liable  to  pay  him  reasonable  compensa- 
tion" (q). 

Yet  in  the  face  of  such  decisions,  Church,  P.  J.,  says 
(r).  It  is  a  dangerous  power  to  give  the  coroner  or  justice 
of  the  peace,  the  right  to  hire  a  physician.  It  should  be  ex- 
ercised very  cautiously. 

Sect.  90.  We  have  already  seen  (s)  that  there  is  a 
considerable  doubt  as  to  whether  the  coroner's  inquest  is  to 
be  considered  a  matter  of  public  inquiry  or  merely  a  secret 
investigation,  part  of  the  criminal  procedure  of  the  state  to 
which  the  public  as  such  have  no  right  to  be  admitted.  The 
weight  of  the  lower  court  cases  seems  to  be  cast  on  the  side 
of  privacy  of  the  inquest.  There  are  no  decisions  directly 
on  the  point.  The  conclusion  we  are  forced  to  draw  from 
the  county  court  decisions  is  that  the  purpose  of  the  inquest 
is  only  to  investigate  cases  where  crimes  have  been  com- 
mitted. The  cases  in  the  supreme  court  we  have  already 
seen  do  not  support  this  view.  When  therefore  we  are  called 
upon  to  analyse  the  effect  of  the  decisions  taken  as  a  whole 
upon  a  question  which  none  of  them  have  directly  touched, 
it  is  difficult  to  say  which  view  would  ultimately  be  taken 
by  the  supreme  court  were  this  point  brought  before  it.  The 
real  basis  of  the  privacy  or  publicity  of  the  inquest  depends 


(0)  Per  Lewis  C.  J.  Northampton  County  v.  Inncs,  26  Pa.  St.,  156 
(1856),  s.  c.  3  P.  L-  J-  644- 

(p)  Hopkins  v.  Chester  County  (supra),  Pickett  v.  Erie  County 
(supra),  but  not  two  physicians.  Coroners  Inquests,  r  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  14. 
s.  c.  3  Kulp,  351 ;  2  Del.  Co.,  446;  3  Lane.  L.  R.,  70  (1885)  ;  Metzger's 
Inquest,  8  Dist.,  573  (1899). 

(q)  Northampton  County  v.  Innes,  26  Pa.  St.,  156  (1856).  s.  c. 
3  P.  L.  J.,  644- 

(r)  Coroners  Inquests  (supra). 
•     (j)  Ante,  Sect.  54, 


212    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

in  part  on  the  object  of  the  inquest.  On  the  whole  we  have 
seen  the  object  in  Pennsylvania  is  not  merely  the  investiga- 
tion of  given  offenses,  but  the  determination  of  the  cause  of 
death  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  whether  or  no  any 
crime  has  been  committed.  From  this  it  would  seem  that  the 
commonwealth  has  a  vital  interest  in  the  inquest  of  the 
coroner.  If  this  premise  is  correct  it  follows  that  the  in- 
dividuals who  make  up  the  commonwealth  should  have 
right  of  access  to  the  inquest.  There  is  another  reason. 
Certain  individuals  have  interests  dependent  on  the  result 
of  the  inquest.  These  persons  it  would  seem  ought  not  to 
be  excluded  from  the  coroners  inquest.  As  we  shall  see  it 
is  the  duty  of  the  coroner  to  hear  the  testimony  of  all  who 
can  give  information  concerning  the  matters  under  investi- 
gation, and  this  seems  to  be  a  strong  argument  in  favor  of 
the  publicity  of  the  inquisition.  It  is  his  duty  to  receive 
evidence  both  for  and  against  the  commonwealth  and  it 
might  well  be  asked  how  can  the  suspected  party  or  parties 
be  expected  to  produce  sufficient  or  even  intelligent  evidence 
against  the  commonwealth  unless  they  have  a  right  to  be 
present.  Moreover  depositions  taken  before  the  coroner 
are  still  in  certain  cases  evidence  (t)  and  how  can  this  be 
unless  the  party  against  whom  the  depositions  are  to  be 
used  has  a  right  to  be  present  and  cross  examine.  It  may 
also  be  said  that  the  inquest  may  still  be  quashed  for  ir- 
regularity and  unless  the  parties  have  a  right  to  be  present 
there  can  be  no  check  upon  irregularities.  On  the  other 
hand  there  are  many  equally  weighty  considerations.  "It 
is  obvious  although  the  inquiry  of  the  coroner  is  preliminary 
only,  that  it  may  and  frequently  does  lead  to  an  accusation. 
Such  an  inquiry  ought  for  the  purposes  of  justice  in  some 
cases  to  be  conducted  in  secrecy.  It  may  be  requisite  that 
the  party  suspected  should  not  at  so  early  a  stage  be  in- 
formed of  the  suspicion  that  may  be  entertained  against  him, 
and  the  evidence  upon  which  that  suspicion  is  founded  lest 
he  should  elude  justice  by  flight,  by  tampering  with  the  wit- 
nesses or  by  any  other  means"  (£/).  There  may  be  cases  in 
which  privacy  is  requisite  for  the  sake  of  decency  or  because 

(f)  See  Peake  on  Evidence,  64;  2  Phil.  &  Arn.  on  Evidence,  no. 
(tt)  Jervis  on  Coroners,  p.  240. 


THE  CORONER'S  INQUEST  213 

it  is  due  the  family  of  the  deceased.  So  it  may  be  argued 
that  where  the  exclusion  of  the  public  at  large  is  unnecessary 
that  of  some  one  person  is  requisite  to  the  fulfillment  of  the 
ends  of  justice.  To  all  this  argument  the  answer  is  plain 
the  coroner's  court  like  every  other  court  of  this  common- 
wealth is  open  and  public,  but  the  coroner  is  the  judge 
of  the  court  and  may  use  his  discretion  to  exclude  whomso- 
ever he  sees  fit  to  exclude  that  the  ends  of  justice  may  be  ac- 
complished. Bearing  in  mind  the  purpose  of  the  inquest  is 
not  to  accuse,  we  may  fairly  say  the  coroner  has  power  to 
admit  to  or  exclude  from  his  inquest  according  to  his  own 
discretion.  For  fair  bona  fide  exercise  of  this  discretion,  no 
action  will  lie  against  the  coroner  (w).  But  the  coroner 
should  exercise  judicial  discretion  in  admissions  and  ex- 
clusions. Indeed  unless  he  had  such  power  it  would  be  im- 
possible that  the  proceedings  should  be  conducted  with  due 
order  and  solemnity  (v)  even  though  it  is  a  misdemeanor 
to  interfere  with  the  coroner  in  the  exercise  of  his  office.  It 
would  therefore  seem  that  the  coroner  has  the  right  to 
exclude  not  only  an  individual  but  the  public  generally  from 
his  investigation. 

Taken  from  the  other  side  we  have  the  question  whether 
or  not  the  coroner  has  the  right  to  have  the  accused  brought 
before  him  at  his  inquest.  Although  the  coroner  holds  a 
court  in  Pennsylvania,  he  is  not  a  court  of  record  («/). 
It  would  seem  therefore  that  as  the  decision  has  been  in 
England,  where  the  coroner  is  a  court  of  record,  that  he 
cannot  force  the  criminal  to  be  brought  before  him,  a 
fortiori  he  has  no  such  power  in  Pennsylvania. 

Sect.  91.  It  has  already  been  observed  that  the  body 
is  a  large  part  of  the  evidence  in  the  coroner's  inquest.  The 
marks  or  wounds  upon  the  body  should  be  carefully  observed 
by  the  jury  (#)  and  their  length,  breadth  and  depth  care- 
fully noted  (y).  Fleta  tells  us  the  body  should  be  seen 


(«)  6  B.  &  C,  611,  nor  for  any  other  judicial  act  by  him  done. 
(v)  Ante,  Sect.  54. 

(a/)  Edwards  v.  Gimbel,  202  Pa.  St.,  30  ( 1902)  ;  Commonwealth  v. 
Higgins,  5  Kulp,  269  (1889). 
(*)  Britton,  c.  I,  Sect.  7. 
(y)  4  Edward  I. 


214    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

naked  that  all  these  marks  may  be  observed  (2).  The  jury 
must  be  sworn  before  the  view  is  had  (a)  and  the  coroner 
and  jury  must  view  the  body  together.  If  the  coroner  views 
it  at  one  time,  the  jury  at  another,  the  whole  inquest  is 
void  (fc). 

It  is  the  duty  of  the  coroner  to  inquire  impartially  and 
fairly  without  prejudice  or  favor  to  any  one  or  any  view 
of  the  case.  It  is  his  duty  to  hear  all  the  evidence  that  may 
be  offered  him  (c).  He  is  inquiring  of  facts  and  to  those 
facts  he  is  to  be  utterly  impartial.  He  should  be  very  care- 
ful not  to  instruct  the  jury  upon  the  facts,  but  only  upon 
the  law  for  the  jury  are  the  judges  of  the  facts  not  he.  There 
is  no  requirement  that  the  evidence  shall  be  taken  down,  but 
the  coroner  must  take  down  the  "effect  of  the  evidence." 
We  may  agree  with  East  (d)  that  this  does  not  mean  the 
impression  the  evidence  makes  on  his  mind,  but  the  meaning 
of  the  witnesses,  as  a  matter  of  practice  the  coroner  is  al- 
ways attended  by  a  stenographer  who  takes  down  the  evi- 
dence verbatim. 

Sect.  92.  "It  has  been  doubted  whether  the  parties  in- 
terested in  the  inquiry  are  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  counsel 
before  the  coroner's  inquest  (a).  In  one  case  of  felo  de  se 
the  court  of  king's  bench  quashed  the  inquisition  because  the 
coroner  refused  to  admit  counsel  and  witnesses  on  behalf  of 
the  administrator.  There  is  however  no  decision  applicable 
to  other  inquiries  before  the  coroner  and  the  case  alluded  to 
proceeded  upon  the  supposition  that  inquisitions  of  felo  de  se 
were  not  traversable  whereas  it  may  be  supported  more 
properly  upon  another  ground  without  reference  to  the  ad- 
missibility  of  counsel,  viz.,  the  rejection  of  evidence.  It 
was  admitted  in  the  argument  of  the  case  of  Cox  v.  Cole- 
ridge that  a  party  has  a  right  to  attend  by  counsel  before  the 
coroner's  inquest,  the  point  was  not  however  noticed  in  the 


(s)  Fleta  Lib.,  i  cap.  25,  Sect.  9. 

(a)  Jervis  on  the  Law  of  Coroners,  256. 

(b)  Burnett  v.  Lackawanna  County,  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  95,  s.  c.   i 
Lack.  Jur.  410  (1890). 

(c)  King  v.  Scorey,  I  Leach,  43  (1749). 

(d)  i  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  384. 

(e)  This  and  the  following  paragraphs  are  quoted  from  Jervis  on 
the  Law  of  Coroners,  p.  267. 


THE  CORONER'S  INQUEST  215 

judgment  of  the  court,  but  Mr.  Justice  Bayley  observed  in- 
cidentally that  the  right  depended  upon  the  question  whether 
or  no  the  inquest  were  traversable.  But  with  great  defer- 
ence to  so  high  an  authority  it  would  seem  that  the  right  can 
in  no  case  depend  upon  this  criterion.  The  nature  of  the 
finding  cannot  be  ascertained  until  all  the  witnesses  are  ex- 
amined and  the  verdict  returned  at  which  period  it  would  be 
fruitless  to  allow  or  disallow  the  attendance  of  counsel. 

"If  this  be  correct  the  question  of  abstract  right  must 
be  considered  without  reference  to  direct  authority  and  it 
would  seem  on  principle  to  be  at  most  but  doubtful.   There 
is  nothing  in  the  position  of  counsel  to  except  them  from  the 
power  of  exclusion  vested  in  the  coroner  and  if  they  are 
allowed  there  is  no  reason  why  any  other  advocate  skilled 
in  the  law  should  not  be  permitted  to  be  present  at  the 
coroner's  proceedings.    If  any  advocate  has  the  right  to  be 
present  a  fortiori  the  party  suspected  (for  there  can  be  no 
accusation  until  the  inquiry  is  terminated)  may  be  present 
also  and  undoubtedly  the  coroner  may  if  he  thinks  fit  ex- 
clude even  the  person  suspected.     If  the  party  suspected  or 
interested  has  a  right  to  the  assistance  of  counsel  it  is  im- 
possible to  say  that  those  in  the  opposite  interest  have  not 
the   equal   right   to  have  the   presence   and   assistance   of 
some  legal  adviser  on  their  behalf,  and  if  one  may  attend, 
why  not  several,     If  an  advocate  has  a  right  to  be  present 
he  may  obtain  such  information  as  may  tend  to  frustrate 
the  administration  of  justice  by  knowing  who  the  persons 
are  who  are  likely  to  be  accused  and  the  evidence  by  which 
the  accusation  may  be  supported.     The  profession  at  the 
present  day  is  too  liberal,  honorable  and  intelligent  to  fur- 
nish ground  for  objection  on  this  score  but  the  bare  possi- 
bility is  sufficient  to  determine  the  question  of  abstract  right. 
It  seems  that  the  accused  should  have  the  right  to  be  present 
with  his  counsel  ordinarily. 

"It  by  no  means  follows  as  a  consequence  that  their  ad- 
mission on  some  occasions  would  confer  a  right  to  be  present 
at  all  times. 

"If  it  be  not  left  to  the  fair  discretion  of  the  coroner 
whether  he  will  or  will  not  admit  counsel  that  privacy  which 
is  due,  not  only  to  the  ends  of  justice,  where  the  inquiry 


216    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

may  terminate  in  accusation  but  also  in  many  cases  to  the 
feelings  of  the  family  of  the  deceased,  cannot  be  maintained. 
This  exclusion  may  in  some  cases  operate  as  a  temporary 
grievance,  but  it  is  obviously  a  greater  that  the  party  sus- 
pected should  be  excluded;  yet,  that  may  be  done  if  the 
coroner  think  proper,  and  it  is  better  that  there  should  be 
some  hardship  suffered  in  the  individual  case  than  that  the 
public  should  sustain  a  great  detriment. 

"On  the  other  hand  it  is  obvious  that  there  are  many 
cases  in  which  it  may  be  expedient  for  the  coroner  to  admit 
the  presence  of  persons  learned  in  the  law.  Wherever  ques- 
tions of  doubt  or  difficulty  may  present  themselves  in  the 
course  of  the  inquiry  it  is  fitting  that  both  the  court  and  jury 
should  have  the  benefit  of  the  attendance  of  counsel  although 
coroners  are  in  all  cases  presumed  to  be  quaified  to  discharge 
their  duties  should  such  cases  occur.  ********  jn  gne  tne 
power  of  exclusion  even  of  the  public  generally  ought  to  be 
regulated  by  a  due  regard  to  the  circumstances  of  each  par- 
ticular case  and  should  in  no  instance  be  arbitrarily  or  im- 
properly enforced." 

Sect.  92a.  We  may  suppose  that  the  court  of  the  coro- 
ner will  be  called  in  all  manner  of  places.  In  Philadelphia 
County  the  coroner  has  a  special  court  room,  but  even  that 
is  not  always  used.  The  court  should  be  so  arranged  that 
the  coroner  has  a  good  view  of  all  that  takes  place  and  is 
able  to  hear  all  that  is  said.  He  should  sit  so  that  no  one 
can  pass  behind  him.  Next  the  coroner  the  jury  should 
be  considered  and  should  be  seated  so  that  they  may  both 
see  and  hear  if  possible  with  equal  facility  as  the  coroner 
himself.  The  foreman  should  sit  nearest  the  coroner.  In 
the  absence  of  a  witness  box  a  chair  should  be  provided  op- 
posite the  jury  and  in  front  of  the  coroner.  If  there  is  a 
clerk  to  take  the  evidence  he  should  sit  between  the  coroner 
and  the  witness  facing  the  latter.  Seats  should  also  be  pro- 
vided for  counsel  and  medical  witnesses.  If  a  long  table 
can  be  procured  let  the  coroner  sit  at  the  head,  the  jury 
in  a  row  on  the  right  side,  the  clerk  on  the  left  facing  the 
witness  whose  chair  should  be  below  that  of  the  clerk  and 
the  lower  end  of  the  table  should  be  reserved  for  counsel 
and  the  physicians.  The  public  may  be  seated  away  from 


THE  CORONER'S  INQUEST  217 

the  court  and  jury.  Two  separate  tables  should  be  pro- 
vided one  for  the  press,  the  other  for  the  coroner's  officers 
and  police. 

The  clerk  or  one  of  the  officers  should  open  court  in  a 
clear  audible  voice  as  follows: 

"The  coroner's  court  is  now  opened.  Jurymen  will  take 
their  places  in  the  jury  box  (these  words  may  be  omitted 
where  there  is  no  box)  as  their  names  are  called." 

The  list  of  jurors  should  then  be  called  and  they  should 
answer  to  their  names.  As  we  have  seen  it  is  wisest  for  the 
coroner  to  admit  challenges  to  the  jurors  if  any  are  offered. 
When  the  panel  is  completed,  the  coroner  may  summon  any 
person  present  to  complete  it  (e),  the  jury  should  be  sworn. 
The  oath  usually  administered  is  as  follows: — 

"You  and  each  of  you  do  solemnly  swear  that  you 
will  true  inquiry  make  into  the  manner  and  cause  of  death 
of  John  Doe  (and  others)  and  a  true  and  just  verdict  render 
according  to  the  evidence  submitted.  So  help  you 
God."  (/) 

In  some  cases  of  course  the  jury  will  be  sworn  and 
taken  to  view  the  body  before  being  brought  into  court  at 
all.  In  such  case  the  court  proceeds  with  business  as  soon 
as  opened.  Some  coroners  address  the  jury  before  permit- 
ting them  to  hear  evidence.  There  is  no  necessity  for  this 
and  it  is  a  custom  that  cannot  be  too  strongly  discouraged. 

The  view  of  the  body  should  be  had  before  any  wit- 
nesses are  heard.  It  is  essential  in  order  to  prove  the  fact 
of  death  (being  the  best  evidence)  and  also  in  many  in- 
stances because  in  the  absence  of  medical  testimony  it  is 
an  important  factor  in  determining  the  cause  of  death.  The 
marks  of  violence  should  be  carefully  shown  to  the  jury, 
but  the  body  need  not  be  unnecessarily  or  indecently  ex- 
posed, Fleta  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  The  jury 
should  all  view  at  the  same  time  and  the  coroner  should 
view  with  them. 

Witnesses  who  are  to  identify  the  body  should  not  be 


(e~)  Within  certain  bounds  as  we  have  seen. 
(/)  Of  course  it  is  understood  that  those  who  have  conscientious 
scruples  against  oaths  may  affirm. 


218    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

allowed  to  see  it  before  the  jury  do.     They  may  be  sworn 
and  examined,  however,  in  the  presence  of  the  body. 

The  coroner  may  give  the  burial  certificate  as  soon  as  the 
view  is  completed,  but  if  a  post  mortem  examination  is  to 
be  made  the  coroner  should  ascertain  from  the  physicians 
what  further  evidence  is  needed  and  the  burial  should  be 
postponed  until  such  examination  as  the  doctors  think  re- 
quisite has  been  made.  In  all  cases  it  is  wisest  not  to  give 
the  order  until  the  jury  have  returned  their  verdict.  Per- 
mission to  cremate  should  only  be  given  after  the  fullest 
consideration  that  no  further  examination  can  be  neces- 
sary. 

When  the  jury  return  to  the  court  the  officer  should 
call  over  their  names  and  so  in  case  of  an  adjourned  meet- 
ing. But  what  is  to  happen  if  one  of  the  jurors  should  be 
absent  does  not  appear.  Of  course  the  coroner  can  adjourn 
the  meeting  and  can  issue  a  warrant  to  have  the  delinquent 
brought  in.  But  there  must  be  at  least  six  jurors  and  there 
cannot  be  more  so  that  it  would  seem  that  if  one  juror  dis- 
appeared and  could  not  be  found,  the  coroner  must  dis- 
miss the  jury  and  take  another  inquest.  It  is  very  well 
to  say  that  in  practice  it  never  happens,  but  should  it  happen 
it  would  be  most  embarrassing. 

These  preliminary  stages  having  been  completed  the 
coroner  calls  the  witnesses  who  are  sworn  as  follows : — 

"You  do  solemnly  swear  that  the  evidence  you  are 
about  to  give  in  the  matter  now  pending  before  the  coroner 
will  be  the  truth  the  whole  truth  and  nothing  but  the  truth. 
So  help  you  God." 

The  coroner  may  call  whomsoever  he  pleases  and  in 
what  order  soever:  But  he  cannot  refuse  to  call  any  wit- 
ness offered  to  him  or  who  presents  himself  and  desires  to 
give  his  information,  nor  has  he  a  right  to  refuse  to  ex- 
amine any  witness  on  the  ground  that  his  evidence  might 
tend  to  criminate  himself.  The  proper  course  is  for  the 
coroner  to  tell  the  witness  that  he  is  not  bound  to  incriminate 
himself  and  then  let  him  make  what  statement  he  pleases. 
One  limit  the  coroner  may  put  on  witnesses,  and  that  is  this : 
if  the  witness  will  add  nothing  new  but  merely  corroborate 
what  has  been  said  by  previous  witnesses  the  coroner  is  not 


THE  CORONER'S  INQUEST  219 

bound  to  hear  him.  But  it  is  wisest  to  hear  all  the  wit- 
nesses. 

If  witnesses  are  absent  we  have  seen  the  coroner  may 
compel  their  attendance,  but  there  is  considerable  doubt  as 
to  whether  or  no  the  coroner's  warrant  may  be  executed 
out  of  his  jurisdiction.  The  coroner's  inquiry  being  prelimi- 
nary he  may  hear  testimony  not  upon  oath  but  the  jury 
should  be  most  carefully  instructed  that  such  testimony  is 
not  evidence  and  that  they  must  not  base  their  verdict  upon 
it.  The  safest  way  is  to  hear  no  such  statements. 

The  coroner  himself  should  first  examine  the  wit- 
nesses and  this  from  his  preliminary  examination  of  the 
case  he  is  prepared  to  do  intelligently.  When  he  is  through 
with  his  examination  he  should  ask,  "Is  there  any  other  ques- 
tion you  would  like  me  to  put  to  this  witness?"  But  if 
counsel  attend  the  coroner  as  a  rule  permits  them  to  ex- 
amine or  cross  examine  the  witness  when  he  has  finished 
his  own  examination.  The  coroner  is  bound  by  no  rules  of 
evidence  for  his  examination  is  but  a  preliminary  one.  It 
is  moreover  his  duty  to  collect  as  far  as  possible  all  in- 
formation concerning  the  case.  Besides  the  coroner  has  no 
right  to  exclude  proper  evidence,  his  inquisition  may  be 
quashed  on  that  ground,  so  that  it  is  wisest  if  there  is  any 
doubt  on  the  subject  to  admit  the  evidence.  The  immaterial 
and  irrelevant  statements  thus  brought  out  before  the 
coroner  may  be  very  helpful  to  the  police  or  the  district 
attorney  in  investigating  the  case  and  producing  the  neces- 
sary evidence  at  the  trial.  Hearsay,  res  inter  alios  acta,  ad- 
missions and  confessions  voluntary  or  involuntary  may  be 
admitted.  But  the  coroner  may  well  bear  in  mind  that  the 
best  eveidence  is  the  only  proper  evidence  and  should  get 
that  first  before  admitting  testimony  which  would  be  in- 
admissible in  a  court  of  law.  He  may  also  do  well  to  bear  in 
mind,  I,  That  every  person  is  presumed  to  be  sane  until  the 
contrary  is  proven;  2,  That  every  person  is  presumed  to  be 
innocent  of  crime  until  the  contrary  is  proven.  3,  Every 
sane  person  who  has  reached  years  of  discretion  (fourteen) 
is  conclusively  presumed  to  intend  the  natural  and  proba- 
ble consequences  of  his  acts.  4,  That  homicide  is  presumed 
to  be  murder  until  the  contrary  is  proven. 


220    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

The  evidence  having  been  completed  it  becomes  the 
coroner's  duty  to  sum  up.  He  should  be  careful  not  to  in- 
struct the  jury  upon  the  facts  though  he  has  a  right  to  re- 
fresh their  memories,  but  he  should  instruct  them  upon  the 
law  if  any  enters  into  the  case.  The  jury  may  then  retire 
to  deliberate.  What  happens  if  they  disagree  is  discussed 
elsewhere,  in  practice  they  never  do.  When  they  return 
the  usual  query  is  put  to  them  and  they  announce  their 
verdict. 

When  the  jury  has  returned  a  verdict  or  when  it  be- 
comes necessary  to  adjourn  the  inquest  until  a  later  day  this 
may  be  informally  done  by  the  clerk  or  an  officer  upon  in- 
struction from  the  coroner  announcing  the  adjournment. 
In  Philadelphia  the  following  form  is  used: 

"The  coroner's  court  now  stands  adjourned  until  to- 
morrow morning  at  ten  o'clock  (or  as  the  case  may  be.)" 

A  question  of  interest  has  arisen  lately  in  Philadelphia 
County  as  to  the  duty  of  the  coroner  to  commit  in  homicide 
cases.  Judge  Sulzberger  has  laid  it  down  generally  (#) 
that  the  coroner  should  always  commit  persons  found  re- 
sponsible for  death.  It  is  respectfully  submitted  that  such 
is  not  the  law.  The  coroner  may  have  power  to  commit 
where  the  verdict  is  murder  or  manslaughter,  though  this 
has  been  doubted  (&),  beyond  this  he  certainly  has  no  power. 


(g)  Coroner's  Duties,  20  Dist.  502  (1911). 

(A)  Walker  v.  McKean,  31  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  664,  15  Dist.  577  (1005). 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

EFFECT  AND  RETURN  OF  THE  INQUEST. 

Sect.  93.  When  the  evidence  is  closed  the  coroner 
draws  up  the  inquisition  and  he  and  the  jurors  set  their 
hinds  and  seals  to  it  (a).  It  must  be  signed  by  the  jurors 
in  person  by  their  full  names,  initials  will  not  do  (&).  This 
completes  the  inquest  and  no  second  inquest  can  be  held  until 
the  first  is  disposed  of.  We  have  no  instance  on  record 
in  Pennsylvania  where  a  melius  inquirendum  was  granted 
but  the  principles  governing  the  matter  are  still  in  force. 

There  being  no  Pennsylvania  statutes  to  govern,  many 
loose  practices  have  grown  up  about  the  manner  of  mak- 
ing the  return.  The  necessity  for  a  return  to  court  is 
generally  recognized  and  seems  to  be  founded  upon  the 
statute  of  third  Henry  VII  (c),  which  provides  that  the 
coroner  must  return  and  certify  his  inquisition  into  the  next 
goal  delivery  or  into  the  court  of  king's  bench  under  pain 
of  five  pounds.  We  should  expect  to  see  the  inquisitions  in 
Pennsylvania  returned  before  our  court  of  oyer  and  terminer 
and  general  goal  delivery  or  before  the  supreme  court,  but 
such  is  not  the  practice.  In  some  countries  the  return  is 
made  to  the  court  of  quarter  sessions  (d)  in  others  into  the 
common  pleas  (e)  while  in  Centre  (/)  and  Lancaster 
Counties  (g)  the  return  is  made  before  the  county  com- 
missioners. 


'  (a)  22  Assize,  94. 
(fr)  Crosby's  Case,  19  Pitts.  L.  J.,  192;  3  Pitts.,  425  (1872). 

(c)  2  Statutes  of  the  Realm  (English)   510  (1487)- 

(d)  Delaware,  see  Coroner's  Inquests,   i   Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  667,  s.  c. 

2  Del.  Co.,  446,  475  (1885)  ;  Fayette,  see  Fayette  County  Coroners  Re- 
turn, 24  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  498  ( 1900)  ;  Lackawanna,  Marvin  Shaft  Inquest, 

3  Pa.  C.  C.  R..  10  (1887),  and  Perry,  but  in  Perry  the  justices  of  the 
peace  return  their  inquisitions  into  the  common  pleas,  Grubb's  Case,  3 
Pa.  J.  L.  R.,  79  (1904). 

(e)  Clearfield.  Jones's  Case,   I    Pa.  C.  C.   R.,   19   (1885),  and  see 
Grubb's  Case,  3  Pa.  J.  L.  R.,  78  (1904),  as  to  Perry  the  justices  of  the 
peace  return  their  inquisitions  into  the  common  pleas  where  they  are 
laid  over  pending  exceptions. 

(/)  Burn's  Case,  5  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  548  (1888). 

(g)  It  was  so  argued  by  J.  W.  Johnson  in  Lancaster  County  v. 
Mishler,  100  Pa.  St.  624  (1882). 

(221; 


222    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

The  coroner's  inquest  in  Pennsylvania  seems  to  have 

ceased  to  have  the  effect  of  an  indictment,  therefore  the 

strictness  requisite  in  drawing  up  the  return  which  pertained 

in  England  has  gradually  been  slackened  until  now  no  form 

is  required  though  certain  essentials  are  still  necessary  (h). 

It  seems  it  is  not  necessary  for  the  coroner's  return  to  show 

on  its  face  "when,  where  and  how  the  coroner  was  called" 

nor  set  forth  that  there  were  suspicions  of  foul  play  (i).  But 

wherever  the  special  act  of  1866  is  in  force,  it  is  requisite 

that  the  occasion  for  the  interposition  of  the  coroner  should 

appear  and  the  simple  statement  that  "there  was  strong 

suspicion  of  violence  such  as  to  make  an  inquest  necessary" 

is  not  enough   (£).     It  can  be  presumed  that  the  coroner 

acts  in  good  faith  it  is  reasonable  that  such  statement  should 

be  held  sufficient,  but  in  Smith's  Case  (/),  it  was  decided  that 

the  court  cannot  presume  any  thing  to  justify  the  coroner  in 

holding  the  inquest,  that  the  return  does  not  show  on  its  face. 

So  under  the  act  of  1897  (m)  where  the  coroner  makes  a 

return  that  no  inquest  is  necessary  he  should  state  that  he 

was  called  upon  to  act  and  by  whom  and  should  add  a  brief 

of  the  statements  made  to  him  (n).    In  this  connection  it 

must  be  remembered  that  the  sole  purpose  of  this  act  is 

to  give  additional  fees  and  that  under  it  the  return  may 

well  be  different  (0)  from  the  return  where  an  inquest  is 

taken  (/>). 

But  as  we  have  observed  there  are  certain  essentials  in 
substance  that  cannot  well  be  omitted,  the  nature  of  the 
death  should  be  most  specifically  set  out  (q}.  The  return 

(h)  Marvin  Shaft  Inquest,  3  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  10  (1883);  Coroners 
Inquest,  i  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  14  (1885)  ;  Crosby's  Inquest,  19  P.  L.  J.,  192; 
3  Pitts.,  425  (1872)  ;  Fayette  County  Coroners  Inquest,  30  Pa.  C.  C.  R., 
321;  35  P.  L.  J.,  265;  Del.  431  (1904),  for  a  form,  see  ex  parte  Schulz, 
6  Wharton,  269  (1841). 

(t)  Fayette  County  Coroners  Return,  24  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  498  (1900). 

(fc)  Smith's  Case,  4  Lane.  L.  R.  302  (1867). 

(/)  Supra. 

(m)  P.  L.  8. 

(n)  Fayette  County  Coroners  Return  (supra). 

(0)  Besides  it  must  comply  with  the  terms  of  the  act. 

(/>)  So  a  deputy  coroner  is  entitled  to  no  fee  where  no  inquest 
is  taken,  re  Missiner,  20  Mont.  200,  s.  c.  3  Pa.  J.  L.  R.,  88;  18  York, 
115  (1904). 

(q~)  King  v.  Solway,  3  Modern,  100  pi.,  61  (1686)  ;  Anonymous, 
12,  Modern,  112  (1697). 


EFFECT  AND  RETURN  OF  THE  INQUEST  223 

should  state  the  inquisition  was  upon  view  (r)  of  a  dead 
body  and  where  the  death  occurred.  If  a  crime  has  been  com- 
mitted it  should  be  stated  by  whom  (s)  or  that  it  was  com- 
mitted by  a  person  unknown  (f).  The  return  should  specify 
the  names  of  the  jurors  (u)  but  it  is  highly  improbable  that 
it  would  be  quashed  if  it  did  not.  It  must  state  that  the 
jurors  were  sworn  (v).  It  should  contain  in  cases  where 
murder  or  manslaughter  is  found  (w;)  the  effect  of  the  evi- 
dence under  the  statute  of  i  and  2  Phillip  and  Mary  Chapter 
13,  which  is  still  in  force  in  Pennsylvania  (>). 

There  is  no  other  statute  in  force  in  Pennsylvania  re- 
quiring the  coroner  to  reduce  to  writing  the  evidence  of  wit- 
nesses testifying  before  him  (y).  In  these  days  of  short- 
hand and  typewriting  it  has  come  to  be  the  practice  to  re- 
port the  whole  testimony  and  attach  a  full  transcript  thereof 
to  the  inquisition.  All  that  is  required  is  "to  put  in  writing 
the  effect  of  the  evidence  given  to  the  jury  before  the 
coroner  (2)  not  the  evidence  itself."  The  usefulness  of  the 
testimony  ceases  with  the  rinding,  it  need  not  be  preserved,  it 
is  only  to  aid  in  the  rinding  (a),  but  it  is  easier  to  attach  a 
transcript  and  that  is  the  almost  universal  custom. 

As  we  have  already  noticed  the  learning  in  relation  to 
the  melius  inquirendum  in  England  has  become  obsolete  in 
Pennsylvania.  The  coroners  in  Pennsylvania  do  not  seem 
to  have  been  so  prone  to  misbehave  as  were  those  in  Eng- 
land. What  should  be  done  in  case  the  jury  disagree  does 
not  clearly  appear.  It  seems  probable  that  the  coroner 
should  dismiss  them  and  hold  another  inquest.  But  should 


(r)  But  see  Ralston's  Petition,  9  Dist,  514,  s.  c.  30  P.  L.  J.,  410 
(1900)  where  it  was  held  in  effect  that  the  jury  does  not  have  to  view 
the  body. 

(j)  Regina  v.  Stockdale,  8  Dowl.  P.  C,  516  (1840). 

(0  2  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  64-65. 

(«)  Pinner's  Case,  Croke's  Elizabeth,  31  pi.,  4  (1584)  ;  Staunde- 
ford's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  51 ;  Fitzherbert's  Abridgment  Title  Cor- 
oners, 107. 

(v)  Britton,  chap,  i,  Sect.  6. 

(w)  Edwards  v.  Gimbel,  202  Pa.  St.,  30  (1902). 

(x)  3  Binney,  621. 

(y)  Marvin  Shaft  Inquest,  3  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  10  (1887),  says  notes 
of  testimony  cannot  be  filed. 

(*)  i  &  2  Philip  &  Mary,  cap.  13;  4  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  250 
(1554). 

(a)  Weaver  v.  Northampton  County,  2  Lehigh  Valley,  408  (1887). 


224    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

the  jury  misbehave  otherwise,  it  is  doubtful  what  should  be 
done.  If  they  find  facts  wholly  unwarranted  by  the  evidence 
it  seems  that  a  melius  inquirendum  should  be  granted  (b). 

Sect.  94.  When  the  coroner  returns  his  inquest  the  ap- 
proval of  the  court  is  not  required  in  order  to  establish  the 
validity  of  the  proceedings,  but  no  fees  will  be  paid  the 
coroner  without  such  approval.  But  the  validity  of  the  in- 
quest is  not  effected  by  the  action  of  the  court  and  it  would 
sustain  a  commitment  even  though  the  court  refused  the  cor- 
oner fees  (c).  Amendments  are  freely  allowable  (d)  so  that 
an  inquest  is  never  discharged  for  a  defect  if  the  defect  is 
capable  of  being  remedied  by  amendment.  Certiorari  is  still 
the  proper  method  of  forcing  a  return  (e).  In  the  only  re- 
ported case  where  it  has  been  tried  it  was  held  to  be  im- 
proper upon  facts  which  lead  us  to  doubt  if  it  is  ever  proper. 
In  Ralston's  Petition  (/)  an  attempt  was  made  to  remove 
the  proceedings  from  before  the  coroner  to  the  common  pleas 
by  certiorari.  The  petition  to  that  end  set  forth  that  the 
jury  did  not  view  the  body  and  that  ex  parte  affidavits  were 
read  to  them.  The  court  however  decided  it  was  not  a  proper 
case  for  certiorari.  It  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  court  could 
reach  this  conclusion  without  deciding  that  it  was  unneces- 
sary to  hold  the  inquest  super  visum  corporis,  and  that  wit- 
nesses need  not  appear  before  the  inquisition. 

Sect.  95.  Hawkins  heads  the  thirty-third  section  of  the 
ninth  Chapter  of  his  Pleas  of  the  Crown  "what  high  credit 
the  law  gives  to  an  inquisition  of  death  before  a  coroner." 
We  have  observed  what  weight  was  anciently  given.  But  to 
a  student  of  modern  coroner's  law  and  practice  the  remark 
is  well  nigh  incredible.  It  is  now  doubtful  whether  a 


(6)  King  v.   Heathershall,  3   Modern,  80   (1680).     But  see  ante 
Sect.  52,  note  (h). 

(c)  Reitlinger's  Case,  2  Kulp.   127,  s.  c.   14  Lancaster  Bar,   123; 
3  York,  101;  n  Luz.  L.  Reg.,  157  (1882). 

(d)  Fayette  County  Coroners  Return,  30  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  321,  s.  c. 
35  P.  L.  J.,  265;  9  Del.  Co.,  431  (1904)  ;  Metzger's  Inquest,  8  Dist.,  573 
(1899). 

(e)  So  argued  by  J.  W.  Johnson  in  Lancaster  County  v.  Mishler, 
100  Pa.  St.,  624  (1882)  and  obiter  in  Ralston's  Petition,  9  Dist.,  514,  s. 
c.  30  P.  L.  J.,  410  (1900). 

(/)  Supra. 


EFFECT  AND  RETURN  OF  THE  INQUEST  225 

coroner's  verdict  is  sufficient  to  found  criminal  proceedings 
upon,  it  has  been  said  there  must  be  other  preliminary  pro- 
ceedings (g}.  Indeed  in  this  state  the  coroner's  verdict  has 
been  said  to  have  no  legal  effect  at  all  (/t).  It  is  not  surpris- 
ing therefore  that  the  rule  should  be  inflexible  that  where  a 
coroner  having  jurisdiction  in  a  particular  case  makes  a  suffi- 
cient record  of  the  inquest,  the  regularity  of  the  finding  can- 
not be  impeached  in  a  collateral  proceeding  (»').  We  are 
almost  reminded  that  de  minimis  non  curat  lex. 

Sect.  96.  Evidence  taken  before  the  coroner  cannot  be 
admitted  in  a  subsequent  trial  arising  out  of  the  matter  of 
inquiry  to  discredit  a  witness  unless  it  is  duly  proved  by  the 
coroner  (&).  The  inquest  itself  is  not  admissible  to  prove 
suicide  on  the  part  of  a  defendant  life  insurance  com- 
pany (/). 


(p)  14  Albany  Law  Journal,  337  (1876)  ;  n  American  Law  Reg- 
ister, 482. 

(h)  II  American  Law  Reg.  482;  Ralston's  Petition  (supra). 

(*)  Lancaster  County  v.  Mishler,  100  Pa.  St.,  624  (1882);  sed 
quaere,  Lancaster  County  v.  Bern,  2  Grant.,  262  ( 1852) . 

(fe)  Edwards  v.  Gimbel,  202,  Pa.  St.,  30  (1902). 

(/)  Reynolds  v.  Supreme  Conclave,  19  Lane.  L.  R.,  129,  s.  c.  2 
Blair  Co.,  210  (1902). 


CAPTER  IX. 
THE  CORONER'S  DUTIES  IN  REGARD  TO  MINES. 

Sect.  97.  Two  duties  have  been  imposed  upon  the 
coroner  in  Pennsylvania  quite  different  from  those  required 
of  him  at  common  law.  The  first  of  these  is  the  duty  in  re- 
gard to  mines.  While  it  may  in  general  be  said  that  every 
thing  the  coroner  is  required  to  do  in  regard  to  mines  is  a 
part  of  his  common  law  duties,  the  statutes  upon  the  subject 
define  his  duties  more  specifically  and  limit  and  enlarge  them 
in  such  particulars  as  to  make  it  necessary  to  consider  the 
subject  distinctly.  The  act  of  1891  (a)  provides  that  in  the 
case  of  anthracite  mines  the  mine  inspector  and  not  the 
coroner  shall  visit  the  scene  of  any  accident  in  a  mine 
wherein  lives  have  been  lost  or  are  put  in  danger  and  he  not 
the  coroner  shall  determine  whether  or  not  an  inquest  shall 
be  held  (&).  If  he  determine  that  an  inquest  is  necessary 
he  notifies  the  coroner  to  hold  the  inquest  without  delay. 
The  coroner  then  appears  and  holds  a  second  preliminary 
investigation.  If  he  determines  that  no  inquest  is  necessary 
none  is  held  by  him  (c).  But  unless  he  does  hold  an  inquest 
(and  that  within  twenty-four  hours)  the  inspector  has  the 
right  to  go  on  with  the  inquest  without  the  coroner  (d). 
But  if  the  coroner  determines  to  hold  an  inquest  he  must  do 
so  in  the  presence  of  the  inspector.  If  the  inspector  be  not 
present  when  the  inquest  is  called  the  coroner  must  adjourn 
the  inquest  to  a  future  day  giving  the  inspector  three  days' 
notice  of  the  time  and  place  of  the  inquest  (e).  Indeed  the 
coroner  must  notify  the  inspector  under  any  circumstances 
of  the  time  and  place  of  holding  the  inquest  and  the  in- 
spector has  a  right  to  be  present  and  examine  witnesses  (/). 


(a)  2  June  1891  Art.  13  P.  L.  202. 

(&)  Sect.  2  of  the  above  act. 

(c)  Mestrezat  P.  J.  in  Approval  of  Coroners  Inquest,  7  Dist.,  566, 
s.  c.  2  Docket  65  s.  c.  sub  nom  Coroners  Inquests,  20  Pa.  C.  C.  R., 
660  (1896). 

(rf)  Act  of  2  June,  1891,  Art.  13,  Sect.  2  P.  L.,  202. 

(*)  Sect.  3  of  the  above  act. 

(/)  Sect.  4  of  the  above  act. 
(226) 


THE  CORONER'S  DUTIES  IN  REGARD  TO  MINES      227 

If  the  coroner  fail  to  notify  the  inspector  he  is  without  juris- 
diction (g').  His  jurors  are  moreover  limited  to  those  not 
employed  in  the  mine  or  colliery  where  the  accident  happened 
nor  interested  otherwise  in  the  proceedings  (&).  If  the 
coroner  finds  the  death  to  have  been  due  to  negligence  it 
becomes  his  duty  to  notify  the  inspector  to  remedy  the 
defects  (»).  From  these  provisions  it  appears  that  the  in- 
quests held  under  this  act  have  a  different  standing  from 
the  common  law  coroners  inquest  (&).  On  the  other  hand 
"it  is  not  every  accident  resulting  in  death  which  under  the 
mining  laws  justifies  a  coroner's  inquest.  It  is  only  such  an 
accident  resulting  in  death  as  would  appear  to  be  the  result 
of  some  manifest  neglect  on  the  part  of  the  operator  of  the 
mine.  A  death  which  is  the  result  of  the  miner's  own  neg- 
lect or  carelessness  is  not  one  which  justifies  an  inquest. 
Nor  is  a  death  which  is  a  pure  accident"  (/).  But  while 
under  such  circumstances  the  coroner  may  refuse  to  inquire 
there  is  nothing  in  the  act  to  prevent  the  mine  inspector 
from  holding  his  inquest. 

"The  act  of  May  15,  1893  (m)  requires  the  persons 
having  charge  of  a  bituminous  coal  mine  to  give  notice  to 
the  cororier,  of  any  person  killed  by  reason  of  any  explosion 
or  other  accident  in  said  mine"  (n).  In  this  case  the  coroner 
is  to  make  the  preliminary  investigation.  Should  it  appear 
that  the  death  was  due  to  the  miners'  own  carelessness  or 
neglect  no  inquest  should  be  held  (0).  But  if  thf  coroner 
determines  to  hold  the  inquest,  then  he  must  notify  the  mine 
inspector  who  must  attend  under  practically  the  same  con- 

(g)  Commonwealth  v.  Norris,  13  Kulp's  Luzerne  Legal  Register, 
i  s.  c.  15  Dist.,  821  (1905)  and  unless  he  sets  out  these  facts  in  his 
return  the  inquest  will  be  quashed. 

(h)  Sect.  6  of  the  act  of  1891    (supra). 

(i)  Sect.  5  (supra). 

(k)  Or  those  under  the  special  act  of  1866,  Smith's  Case,  4  Lane. 
L.  R.,  302  (1887). 

(/)  Marvin  Shaft  Inquest,  3  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  10  (1887);  Cochrane's 
Case,  12  Dist.,  477  s.  c.  27  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  282;  2  Pa.  J.  L.  R.,  27  (1903). 

(m)  Art.  12.  Sect.  I,  P.  L.,  72.  This  act  has  been  replaced  by 
Article  17,  §§  i,  2,  3  and  4  of  the  Act  of  June  9,  1911,  P.  L.  No.  319, 
which  substantially  re-enacts  the  previous  provisions. 

(n)  Approval  of  Coroner's  Inquest,  7  Dist.,  566;  s.  c.  2  Docket, 
65,  s.  c.  sub  nom  Coroner's  Inquests,  26  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  660  (1896). 

(o)  Jones's  Case,  I  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  19  (1885);  Approval  of  Cor- 
oner's Inquests  (supra)  ;  Cochrane's  Case,  12  Dist.,  477,  s.  c.  27  Pa. 
C.  C.  R.,  280;  2  Pa.  J.  L.  R.,  27  (1903). 


228    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

ditions  as  those  which  appertain  to  anthracite  mines.  The 
jury  also  is  similarly  qualified.  But  if  the  coroner  does  not 
hold  an  inquest  it  is  expressly  provided  the  inspector  shall 


"When  the  coroner  or  his  deputy  holds  an  inquest  pur- 
suant to  a  notice  under  these  acts  of  assembly,  the  fact 
that  such  notice  was  given  together  with  the  necessity  for 
holding  the  inquest  should  appear  in  the  return"  (g),  and 
the  simple  statement  that  "there  was  strong  suspicion  of 
violence  such  as  to  make  an  inquest  necessary"  is  not  enough 
(r).  Nothing  is  to  be  presumed  in  such  cases  not  even  that 
the  coroner  acts  in  good  faith.  "We  will  go  so  far"  said 
Archibald,  J.  (s)  "as  to  presume  that  this  was  the  case  of  an 
employee  in  or  about  a  mine  or  colliery  and  that  the 
inquest  was  made  after  notice  from  the  mine  inspector  to 
the  coroner  so  as  to  bring  it  within  Article  14  of  the  act  of 
1885  (P.  L.  244).  But  this  is  going  a  good  way  and  we 
woud  advise  the  coroner  in  future  to  set  forth  such  matters 
in  his  return  if  the  court  is  called  upon  to  approve  them.'' 


(/»)  Act  of  15  May,  1893,  Art.  12,  Sect.  3,  P.  L.  72. 

(<?)  Approval  of  Coroners  Inquests  (supra). 

(r)  Smith's  Case  (supra).  For  forms  of  return  which  were 
rejected  and  the  reason  for  rejecting  them  see  Commonwealth  v. 
Norris,  13  Kulp  (Luzerne  Legal  Register),  i  s.  c.  15  Dist,  821  (1905). 

(s)  Evan's  Inquest,  4  C.  P.,  89  (1887). 


CHAPPTER  X. 

THE    CORONER' 3    DUTIES    IN    REGARD   TO    MORGUES. 

Sect  98.  As  we  have  already  seen  the  coroner's  duties 
have  recently  been  increased  by  adding  thereto  obligations 
wholly  foreign  to  the  ancient  duties  of  the  office.  Another  of 
these  is  the  regulation  and  management  of  the  morgue.  The 
morgue  is  an  institution  of  comparatively  recent  date  on 
Pennsylvania  soil  (a).  By  the  Act  of  1899  (6)  the  county 
commissioners  in  every  county  are  authorized,  upon  the 
presentment  of  two  successive  grand  juries  of  the  county,  to 
erect  and  maintain  a  morgue  "for  the  reception  and  care 
of  the  bodies  of  all  unclaimed  deceased  persons  upon  whom 
it  may  be  necessary  to  hold  a  coroner's  inquest  and  such 
other  bodies  as  the  coroner  of  such  county  may  by  written 
order  direct  to  be  received  therein,"  provided  that  any  dead 
body  found  in  any  public  place  or  the  body  of  any  un- 
known person  shall  be  removed  to  the  morgue.  It  therefore 
appears  that  where  a  morgue  has  been  established  it  is  the 
duty  of  the  coroner  to  remove  any  body  upon  which  he 
deems  it  necessary  to  hold  an  inquest  to  the  morgue.  He 
has  no  right  to  take  it  elsewhere. 

In  counties  where  there  is  no  public  morgue  if  a  private 
one  has  been  established  the  coroner  has  the  right  to  remove 
thereto  all  dead  bodies  that  may  be  found  in  any  public  place, 
or  the  body  of  any  unknown  deceased  person  on  which  it 
may  be  necessary  to  hold  a  post-mortem  or  inquest  (c). 

The  coroner  is  the  chief  executive  officer  of  the  morgue. 
He  may  make  such  rules  and  regulations  for  the  govern- 
ment thereof  as  he  sees  fit.  He  has  power  to  appoint  all 
persons  connected  therewith  and  to  fix  their  salaries  unless 
there  is  a  salary  board  in  the  county.  He  may  remove  his 
appointees  at  pleasure. 


(a)  The  Act  of  12  June,  1893,  P.  L-,  457,  is  the  first  statutory 
mention  of  morgues  in  Pennsylvania. 

(&)  Act  of  18  April,  1899,  P.  L.  52. 

(c)  And  the  Salary  Board  shall  fix  the  compensation  to  the  owner 
of  the  morgue,  Act  of  8th  June,  1911,  P.  L.  No.  288. 

(329) 


230    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

The  bodies  received  at  the  morgue  pass  into  the  con- 
trol of  the  coroner  who  has  full  power  to  have  them  em- 
balmed or  preserved  for  such  length  of  time  as  he  deems 
proper.  He  may  exclude  all  visitors  from  sight  of  any 
such  body  or  may  admit  whomsoever  he  pleases.  Bodies 
can  only  be  removed  from  the  morgue  for  burial  upon  his 
certificate  in  writing.  But  after  the  inquest  the  coroner 
has  no  control  over  the  body  (rf). 

All  clothing  and  personal  property  brought  to  the 
morgue  belonging  to  the  dead  bodies  there  passes  into  the 
control  of  the  coroner.  He  keeps  them  for  one  year,  if  un- 
claimed in  the  interval,  at  the  end  of  which  time  those 
remaining  are  sold  at  public  sale  and  the  proceeds  paid 
over  to  the  county  treasurer  (e). 

These  duties  are  purely  ministerial  and  may,  therefore, 
even  in  the  absence  of  statutory  authority,  be  delegated  by 
the  coroner. 


(d)  Both  at  common  law  and  by  the  Act  of  i6th  April,  1907,  P.  L. 
92. 

(?)  There  are  lengthy  provisions  in  the  Act  of  1899  regarding  the 
sale  of  these  goods  not  necessary  to  be  considered  here. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

MINISTERIAL  DUTIES  OF  CORONERS. 

Sect.  983.  The  coroner's  chief  ministerial  duty  is  to  act 
as  substitute  for  the  sheriff  "when  exception  can  be  taken  to 
the  sheriff  for  suspicion  of  partiality  (as  where  he  is  in- 
terested in  the  suit  (a),  or  is  kindred  to  either  plaintiff 
or  defendant)  (b)  the  process  must  then  be  awarded  to 
the  coroner  instead  of  to  the  sheriff  for  the  execution  of  the 
king's  writs"  (c).  In  all  proceedings  against  the  sheriff, 
process  should  be  awarded  to  the  coroner  (d).  So  much  of 
the  common  law  is  in  force  in  Pennsylvania  today  (e).  But 
the  statutes  have  decidedly  enlarged  the  coroner's  ministerial 
duties.  Thus  under  the  common  law  the  coroner  acts  as  a 
substitute  for  the  sheriff  and  not  in  place  of  the  sheriff 
and  therefore  if  the  sheriff  is  dead  or  removed  (/)  or  if 
for  any  reason  there  is  no  sheriff  {g}  the  coroner  could  not 
act  but  the  Act  of  1803  (h)  provides: 

"If  any  sheriff  shall  be  legally  removed  from  his  office, 
or  shall  die  before  the  expiration  of  the  term  for  which  he 
shall  have  been  commissioned,  the  coroner  of  the  same 
county  shall  execute  the  office  of  sheriff,  and  perform  all 
things  thereunto  appertaining,  until  another  sheriff  shall  be 


(a)  Weston  v.  Coulston,  i  W.  Blackstone's  Reports,  506  (1763) 
and  see  27  Assize,  47. 

(M  Comyn's  Digest  Title  Officer  G. 

(c)  I  Blackstone's  Commentaries,  349,  but  only  at  the  petition 
of  the  parties;  22  Henry  VII,  4ib;  see  4  Modern  65,  and  see  Smith 
T-.  Nicola,  6  Dist.,  595,  s.  c.  19  Pa,  C  C.  R.,  440  (1897). 

(rf)  7  Henry  VI,  333;  36a  "per  Newton  &  non  negatum." 

(e)  This  statement  may  seem  bold  in  view  of  the  Act  of  22  May 
1722,  3  Statutes  at  Large,  307,  providing  that  coroners  shall  in  case 
of  the  disability  of  the  sheriff  execute  testatum  writs  or  be  amerced 
for  neglect,  the  Act  of  12  Jany.  1705,  2  Statutes  at  Large,  231,  providing 
he  shall  serve  writs  of  attachment  under  like  circumstances  and  the 
Act  of  27  Nov.,  1700,  2  Statutes  at  Large,  29,  providing  he  shall  serve 
writs  of  foreign  attachment  under  like  circumstances.  Our  fore- 
fathers seem  to  have  for  the  moment  forgotten  that  the  coroner  was 
a  substitute  for  the  sheriff  in  all  cases,  but  the  common  law  no  doubt 
prevails  at  this  time,  Smith  v.  Nicola,  6  Dist.,  595,  s.  c.  19  Pa.  C.  C.  R., 
440  (1897)- 

(/)  22  Henry  VII,  4ib,  see  4  Modern,  65. 

(0)  King  v.  Warrington,  i  Salkeld,  152,  pi.  2  (1692). 

(h)  Act  of  28th  March  1803,  Sect.  75,  P.  L.  497,  4  Sm.  L.  48. 

(231) 


232    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

duly  commissioned  and  notice  thereof  given  to  such 
coroner." 

The  Act  of  1834  (*')  which  seems  to  somewhat  extend 
the  common  law,  is  as  follows : 

"The  several  duties  hereby  enjoined  upon  the  sheriffs 
of  the  several  counties  relative  to  selecting,  summoning  and 
returning  jurors  as  aforesaid  shall  in  case  of  death  resigna- 
tion, removal  from  office,  inability  or  incompetency  of  any 
sheriff  to  act  be  performed  by  the  coroner  of  the  respective 
county,  and  the  coroner  performing  such  duties  shall  be 
subject  to  all  and  singular  the  provisions  herein  enacted  in 
relation  to  the  sheriffs  and  in  case  of  death,  resignation, 
removal  from  office,  inability  or  incompetency  of  the  sheriff 
and  coroner  to  act  by  a  disinterested  person  to  be  appointed 
for  the  purpose  by  the  Court  or  any  two  Judges  of  the  Court 
of  Common  Pleas  of  the  respective  counties,"  and  section 
one  hundred  and  thirty-two  provides,  "whenever  the  sheriff 
of  any  county  shall  be  incompetent  to  perform  in  any  case 
which  may  be  depending  and  for  trial  by  jury  as  aforesaid, 
the  duties  hereby  enjoined  the  coroner  of  such  county  being 
otherwise  competent  shall  have  power  concurrently  with 
the  commissioners  thereof  to  execute  the  writ  of  venire  for 
the  grand  jury  in  the  manner  aforesaid." 

The  sheriff  must  be  an  absolutely  improper  person  be- 
fore process  can  be  awarded  to  the  coroner  (£).  But  when 
process  has  once  been  awarded  to  the  coroner,  the  sheriff 
cannot  thereafter  intromit  (/),  for  he  has  ceased  to  be  an 
officer  in  the  case  (w).  Even  if  the  sheriff  should  die  or  be 
removed  from  office  or  his  term  should  expire  and  a  new 
sheriff  be  elected  who  is  not  exceptionable,  process  must 
nevertheless  be  awarded  to  the  coroner  (n),  and  process 


(i)  Sect.  131,  P.  L.  364. 

(Ar)  King  v.  Warrington,  I  Salkeld,  152,  pi.  2  (1692). 

(0  2  Henry  VI,  I2a,  2ia;  18  Edward  IV,  7b;  14  Henry  VII,  3ib; 
Skinner,  102;  43  Edward  III,  26  et  per  Lee,  C.  J.,  Palmer  370  (1624)  ; 
Morgan  v.  Wye,  Croke's  Elizabeth,  574  (1594)  ;  Corne  v.  Pastow,  Yel- 
verton,  15  s.  c.  Croke's  Elizabeth,  894  (1602)  ;  see  Moore,  365;  5  Coke's 
Reports,  36;  Sairbl.  v.  Candith,  Yelverton,  214  (1612)  ;  Gregory  v. 
Booker,  Croke's  Elizabeth,  586  (1598). 

(m)  Corne  v.  Pastow,  Yelverton,  15,  s.  c. ;  Croke's  Elizabeth,  894 
(1602). 

(n)  Moore,  356-422. 


MINISTERIAL   DUTIES    OF    CORONERS  233 

issued  to  the  new  sheriff  is  error  (0),  but  it  is  cured  by  the 
statute  of  jeofails. 

By  the  Act  of  22  April,  1850,  (/>)  where  the  sheriff  is 
a  party  and  there  is  no  coroner  in  commission,  it  is  made 
lawful  for  any  constable  in  the  county  to  perform  the  duties 
which  would  otherwise  fall  upon  the  coroner.  The  act  is 
in  derogation  of  the  common  law  and  therefore  should  be 
strictly  construed.  That  being  the  case  if  the  sheriff  and 
coroner  are  both  parties  to  the  suit  the  Court  must  appoint 
elisors  (q)  to  serve  the  process.  So  if  the  sheriff  be  ex- 
ceptionable for  any  other  reason  than  because  he  is  a  party 
to  the  suit  and  the  coroner  be  exceptionable  or  there  be  no 
coroner  elisors  must  be  appointed.  Once  elisors  have  been 
appointed  neither  the  sheriff  nor  coroner  may  intromit 
though  both  be  changed  and  unexceptionable  officers  come 
into  office  (r). 

The  coroner  when  acting  as  sheriff  may  if  necessary 
summon  the  posse  commitatus  (j).  The  coroner  acting  as 
sheriff  is  subject  to  all  the  laws  relating  to  sheriffs  in  every 
particular.  But  this  is  beyond  the  present  subject,  it  would 
be  surplusage  here  to  consider  the  matter. 

Another  obligation  however  has  been  imposed  on  the 
coroner  in  Pennsylvania,  which  was  no  part  of  his  duty  at 
common  law.  This  is  the  duty  to  act  as  prothonotary. 
Though  the  coroner  is  not  often  called  upon  to  act  as  pro- 
thonotary the  Act  of  i6th  June,  1836  (*),  provides: 

"In  all  suits  or  actions  in  which  the  prothonotary  of 
the  Court  shall  be  a  party  or  in  which  he  may  be  interested, 
the  duties  herein  before  (u)  required  to  be  performed  by 
him  shall  be  performed  by  the  recorder  of  deeds,  the  clerk 
of  the  Orphans'  Court,  the  sheriff,  coroner  or  treasurer  of 
the  same  county." 


(0)  Moore,  356. 

(p)  Sect.  19,  P.  L-.  553- 

(9)  2  Wm.  Blackstone's  Reports,  911;  see  8  Henry  VII,  12;  Dyer, 

367. 

(r)  15  Edward  IV,  24;  18  Edward  IV,  8. 

(j)  Hobart,  85. 

(0  Sect.  35,  P.  L-  724. 

(M)  In  arbitrations. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

ACCOUNTS  AND  COMPENSATION  OF  CORONERS. 

Sect.  99.  Only  a  de  jure  coroner  can  claim  any  com- 
pensation of  his  services  (a)  although  one  de  facto  may 
in  some  other  respects  bind  the  county.  It  was  said  in  a 
recent  case  (b)  that  there  are  only  five  legitimate  items  of 
expense  for  the  coroner  (i)  for  viewing  the  body  $2.75, 
(2)  the  fee  to  the  surgeon  for  making  the  post  mortem 
where  such  an  examination  is  necessary,  a  reasonable 
amount  (3),  summoning  and  qualifying  the  inquest  $1.37^2, 
(4)  summoning  and  qualifying  each  witness  25c.,  (5) 
mileage.  Where  there  is  more  than  one  inquest  to  be  held  at 
a  time  the  first  four  charges  duplicate  with  each  additional 
inquest,  but  mileage  can  only  be  charged  once  (c).  The  fees 
of  the  coroner  are  based  (except  in  such  counties  as  are 
provided  for  by  special  acts)  upon  the  Act  of  28  March, 
1814  (d)  which  reads  as  follows: 

"The  fees  to  be  received  by  the  coroner  of  each  county 
shall  be  as  follows  viz.,  for  viewing  a  dead  body  two  dollars 
seventy-five  cents,  summoning  and  qualifying  inquest,  draw- 
ing and  returning  inquisition  one  dollar  thirty-seven  and  a 
half  cents,  summoning  and  qualifying  each  witness  twenty- 
five  cents  to  be  paid  out  of  the  goods  and  chattels  lands  or 
tenements  of  the  slayer  in  case  of  murder  or  manslaughter 
if  any  he  hath,  otherwise  by  the  county  with  mileage  from 
the  court  house  to  the  place  of  viewing  the  body ;  executing 
any  process  or  writs  of  any  kind  the  same  fees  as  are  allowed 
to  the  sheriff  and  the  same  mileage." 

Sect.  loo.  This  act  supplies  and  repeals  all  prior  legis- 
lation on  the  subject.  The  early  laws  upon  this  subject  3re 
so  interesting,  it  may  be  well  to  pause  for  a  brief  digression 
to  consider  them.  A  fee  bill  was  passed  at  Upland  (since 


(o)  Pickett  v.  Erie  Co.,  19  W.  N.  C,  60,  s.  c.  3  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  23 
(1887). 

(&)  Marvin  Shaft  Inquest,  3  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  to  (1887). 
(c)  Ibid,  and  see  Fayette  County  v.  Batton,  108  Pa.  St.,  591  (1885). 
(<f)  Sect.  19,  P.  L.,  363. 
(234) 


ACCOUNTS  AND  COMPENSATION  OF  CORONERS      235 

Chester)  in  1682  (e)  but  what  it  contained  we  cannot  now 
ascertain.  The  Act  of  March  ist,  1683,  (/)  passed  at 
Philadelphia  immediately  took  its  place.  It  provided 
coroner's  fees  shall  be  as  follows: 

Viewing  a  dead  body  ios 

A  warrant  to  summon  inquest  2S 

Entering  the  verdict  of  the  inquest  is 

Returing  the  inquest  is 

To  inquest  per  man  is 

Arresting  the  sheriff  33 

Or  for  any  other  he  arrests  for  the  sheriff  35 

By  the  Act  of  27  November,  1700,  (g)  the  fees  of  the 
coroner  were  again  fixed  at  the  same  figures  as  in  the  prior 
act  except  that  the  inquest  now  received  three  shillings  per 
man  instead  of  one.  By  the  Act  of  28  February,  1710-11, 
(/»)  the  fees  of  the  coroner  were  again  regulated  and  some- 
what reduced  and  it  was  directed  he  should  post  a  table  of 
his  fees  in  a  conspicuous  place  in  his  office  and  should 
give  where  demanded  a  bill  of  particulars  and  a  receipt. 
This  act  was  repealed  by  the  Queen  in  Council  February  20, 
1713.  The  provisions  of  the  act  were  at  once  re-enacted  (»'). 
In  1722  (k)  the  fees  were  fixed  as  follows: — 
For  viewing  the  body,  ios 

For  summoning  the  inquest,  entering  the  ver- 
dict and  returning  the  inquisition,  ios 
For  summoning  or  arresting  the  sheriff  or  any 

other  person  for  him,  6s  6d 

For  traveling  charges  each  mile  (/)  2d 

(e)  Laws  of  the  Province,  cap.  CXXIX,  p.  148,  see  remarks  of 
Archbald,  J.,  in  Burnett  v.  Lackawanna  Co.,  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  95,  s.  c.  I 
Lack.  Jur.,  410  (1890). 

(/)  Chapter  CXXIX,  Duke  of  Yorke's  Book  of  Laws,  48  re- 
enacted  by  Sect.  20  of  the  Act  of  15  May,  1693,  Duke  of  Yorke's  Book 
of  Laws.  235. 

(g)  Sect.  I,  2  Statutes  at  Large,  138  allowed  to  become  a  law 
by  lapse  of  time. 

(h)  Chapter  CLXIX,  2  Statutes  at  Large  348. 

(i)  By  the  Act  of  28  May,  1715,  3  Statutes  at  Large,  111-2,  re- 
pealed by  the  Lords  Justices  in  Council  Aue.  25.  I7io. 

(*)  By  the  Act  of  30  March,  1722-3,  Chapter  CCLXX,  Sect.  2,  3 
Statutes  at  Large  372-8  which  after  having  been  allowed  to  become  a 
law  by  lapse  of  time  was  repealed  by  the  Act  of  August  22,  1752. 

(/)  This  is  the  first  provision  for  mileage  for  the  coroner  on  the 
Statute  Books. 


236    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

This  act  was  repealed  by  the  Act  of  August  22,  1752, 
(w)  which  re-established  the  same  fees  except  for  arrests, 
the  fees  for  which  were  reduced. 

In  1778  (n)  coroner's  fees  were  doubled,  no  doubt  be- 
cause of  the  depreciation  in  the  currency.  In  1779  they 
were  made  treble  what  they  were  by  the  Act  of  1778  (0). 


(m)  Chapter  CCCXCVIII,  Sect.  i.  confirmed  by  the  King  in 
Council,  May  10,  1753,  5  Statutes  at  Large,  166. 

(n)  By  the  Act  of  26  March,  1778,  9  Statutes  at  Large,  229,  which 
was  repealed  by  the  Act  of  16  March,  1779,  9  Statutes  at  Large,  320. 

(0)  By  the  Act  of  16  March,  1779,  Sects.  3  and  4,  9  Statutes 
at  Large,  320. 

By  the  Act  of  23  February,  1870,  Sects,  i,  2  and  3  P.  L.,  226,  it 
was  provided  Sect.  I,  that  the  fees  of  the  coroner  of  Erie  County 
shall  be  the  same  as  hereinafter  ascertained  and  appointed. 

For  legally  viewing  a  dead  body,  three  dollars,  for  legally  sum- 
moning and  qualifying  an  inquest,  drawing  and  returning  an  inquisi- 
tion four  dollars. 

If  it  requires  more  than  one  day  to  view  a  dead  body  and  hold  an 
inquisition  an  additional  two  dollars  for  each  day  necessarily  occupied 
in  the  discharge  of  the  coroner's  duty. 

For  each  juryman  for  each  day  necessarily  occupied  in  making  an 
inquest  one  dollar. 

For  each  mile  circular  necessarily  traveled  by  the  coroner,  six 
cents. 

For  subpoenaing  and  notifying  each  witness  thirty-seven  cents. 

Sect.  2.  A  justice  of  the  peace  holding  an  inquest  shall  receive 
the  same  fees  as  a  coroner. 

Sect.  3,  The  County  of  Erie  shall  pay  the  coroner  and  justices  all 
fees  for  services  justly  performed  or  of  their  duties  in  the  office  of 
coroner. 

The  Act  of  9th  March,  1867,  Sect,  i,  P.  L.,  382,  provides: 

That  the  fees  of  the  coroner  of  Cambria  County  from  and  after 
the  passage  of  this  act  shall  be  as  follows : 

Viewing  a  dead  body  four  dollars. 

Summoning  and  qualifying  an  inquest,  drawing  and  returning  an 
inquisition,  two  dollars  and  a  half. 

Summoning  and  qualifying  each  witness  twenty-five  cents. 

Mileage  5  cents  per  mile  for  each  mile  traveled  in  making  re- 
turn. 

The  Act  of  9th  March,  1868,  Sect,  i,  P.  L.,  382,  provides : 

That  from  and  after  the  passage  of  this  act  the  fees  to  be  received 
by  the  coroner  of  Allegheny  County  in  lieu  of  those  now  allowed  by 
law  shall  be  as  follows: 

Viewing  a  dead  body,  five  dollars  and  fifty  cents. 

Summoning  inquest  and  returning  inquisition  two  dollars  and 
seventy-five  cents. 

Summoning  and  qualifying  each  witness  twenty-five  cents. 

Each  mile  circular  traveled  to  be  reckoned  from  the  court  house  to 
the  place  of  viewing  the  body,  ten  cents. 

This  was  extended  to  Northampton  County  by  the  Act  of  I7th 
April,  1869,  Sect,  i  P.  L.,  1119,  to  Lycoming  by  the  Act  of  31  st  March, 
1870,  Sect,  i,  P.  L.,  695;  to  Beaver  by  the  Act  of  i8th  Feby.,  1871,  Sect, 
i  P.  L.,  106,  to  Bucks  by  the  Act  of  i  April,  1868,  Sect,  i,  P.  L.,  544,  to 
Schuylkill  by  the  Act  of  26  March,  1868,  Sect,  i,  P.  L.,  495. 


ACCOUNTS  AND  COMPENSATION  OF  CORONERS      237 

By  the  Act  of  27  November,  1779  (/>),  it  was  provided 
that  coroners  fees  might  be  paid  in  wheat  but  though  the 
statute  has  never  been  repealed,  it  is  doubtful  if  the  coroner 
would  accept  to-day  a  tender  made  in  that  way. 

By  the  Act  of  1834  (q)  "The  auditors  of  each  country, 
any  two  of  whom  when  duly  convened  shall  be  a  quorum 
shall  audit  settle  and  adjust  the  accounts  of  the  commis- 
sioners, treasurer  and  sheriff  and  coroner  of  the  county  and 
make  reports  thereof  to  the  common  pleas  of  such  county  to- 
gether with  a  statement  of  the  balance  due  from  or  to  such 
commissioners,  treasurer,  sheriff  or  coroner." 

Sect.  101.  The  law  coroners  fees  is  pernicious  through- 
out. It  being  granted  by  the  overwhelming  weight  of  au- 
thority that  the  holding  of  an  inquest  is  a  matter  wholly 
within  the  coroner's  discretion  it  would  seem  from  principle 
that  his  fees  should  be  allowed  whensoever  he  sees  fit  to 
hold  an  inquest,  unless  there  is  a  clear  abuse  of  discretion. 
In  the  case  of  the  King  v.  The  Justices  of  Kent  (r)  how- 
ever for  the  first  time  in  legal  record  fees  were  refused  to 
the  coroner  on  the  ground  that  there  was  no  reason  for  hold- 
ing the  inquisition.  In  Pennsylvania  this  doctrine  found 
an  opening  wedge  in  Northampton  County  v.  Innes  (s). 
In  that  case  the  deceased  died  in  his  own  home  surrounded 
by  his  family.  It  was  said  that  these  facts  might  be  used 
as  an  argument  by  the  county  against  the  coroner's  claim  for 
fees  for  the  inquest  on  the  ground  that  it  was  unnecessary 
this  inference  was  made  law  in  Lancaster  County  v.  Mishler 
(/).  It  may  be  true  that "  it  is  no  part  of  the  coroner's  duty  to 
hold  inquests  for  the  protection  or  vindication  of  individuals 
and  the  county  cannot  be  charged  with  the  expense  of  one 
held  for  such  a  purpose.  As  we  have  already  said  the  ob- 
ject of  the  inquest  is  to  detect  and  aid  in  the  punishment  of 


(/>)  Sect.  3,  10  Statutes  at  Large,  39. 

(<7)  Sect.  48  P.  L.  545- 

(r)   ri  East  229  (1809). 

(s)  26  Pa.  St.,  156;  3  P.  L.  J.,  644  (1856). 

(0  100  Pa.  St.  624  (1882),  and  see  Pickett  v.  Erie  County,  19  W. 
N.  C,  60,  s.  c.  3  Pa.  C.  C  R.,  23  (1882)  ;  Lee's  Case,  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  474 
(1891)  ;  Coroner's  Inquests,  28  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  428  (1903),  and  McFad- 
gen  v.  Chester  County,  10  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  124,  s.  c.  7  Mont.,  149  (1891). 


238    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

crime;  where  the  death  is  free  from  the  suspicion  of  crime 
and  is  apparently  from  natural  causes  no  inquest  is  neces- 
sary" (u).  But  it  can  scarcely  be  conceded  that  the  Court 
is  judge  of  the  necessity  for  holding  the  inquest  (v)  and  that 
if  no  inquest  is  deemed  by  them  to  have  been  necessary  no 
fees  should  be  paid,  though  the  overwhelming  weight  of 
common  pleas  and  quarter  sessions  authority  supports  such 
a  view  (w).  The  only  recent  appellate  decision  Miller  v. 
Cambria  County  (x)  goes  to  the  length  of  saying  that  if 
the  coroner  act  without  sufficient  cause  the  county  is  not 
liable  for  his  fees.  This  must  be  the  law  of  the  common- 
wealth but  it  is  respectfully  submitted  it  is  very  carelessly 
worded.  The  more  careful  opinion  in  Fayette  County 
Coroners  Return  (y)  is  more  correct.  If  the  coroner  in- 
vestigates without  being  satisfied  in  his  own  mind  that  it  is 
necessary  he  cannot  hold  the  county;  to  support  this  view 
we  have  the  innumerable  cases  which  hold  that  the  decision 
to  hold  or  not  to  hold  an  inquest  is  a  judicial  determina- 
tion (2).  It  seems  as  though  the  rule  should  be  that  this 
determination  should  be  final  unless  there  is  an  abuse  of 
discretion,  but  the  county  courts  go  upon  the  theory  that 
"he  must  exercise  his  discretion  wisely"  (a)  and  "the  courts 
are  to  determine  not  whether  there  was  reasonable  cause  for 
holding  an  inquest  but  whether  there  was  reasonable  cause 
for  holding  the  inquest  which  is  asked  to  be  approved"  (&) 
giving  them  an  ex  post  facto  power  to  refuse  to  pay  the 


(u)  Per  Hemphill,  J.,  McFadgen  v.  Chester  County,  10  Pa.  C.  C.  R., 
124,  s.  c.  7  Mont.  149  (1891). 

(v)  As  was  said  in  King  v.  Justices  of  Kent  (supra). 

(w)  Lee's  Case  (supra)  Fayette  County  v.  Batton,  108  Pa.  St., 
591  (1885);  McFadgen  v.  Chester  County  (supra);  Burn's  Case,  5 
Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  548  (1888),  Pf out's  Case,  7  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  265  (1889); 
Witmore's  Case,  3  Dist,  699,  s.  c.  14  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  463  (1894). 

(x)  29  Superior,  166  (1905). 

(y)  24  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  498  (1900). 

(2)  Fayette  County  Coroners  Return,  24  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  498  (1900)  ; 
Commonwealth  v.  Higgins,  2  Kulp,  269  (1889). 

(a)  Weaver  v.  Northampton  County,  2  Lehigh  Valley,  408  (1887). 
though  in  the  same  opinion  it  is  said  "but  if  he  acts  unwisely  it  is 
neither  in  the  power  of  the  court  nor  the  commissioners  to  rectify  such 
acts." 

(6)  Reitlinger's  Case,  2  Kulp  127,  s.  c.  14  Lane.  Bar,  123;  3  York, 
101;  ii  Luz.  L.  Reg.,  157  (1882). 


ACCOUNTS  AND  COMPENSATION  OF  CORONERS      239 

coroner  when  they  themselves  would  with  the  facts  he  had 
before  him  have  determined  to  hold  the  inquest. 

The  justice  acting  as  coroner  is  on  a  very  different 
footing,  for  he  by  statute  (c)  has  no  right  to  fees  until  his 
inquisition  is  returned  to  and  approved  by  the  court  of 
quarter  sessions  (d).  His  return  is  not  conclusive  to  estab- 
lish his  right  to  fees  and  evidence  should  be  received  as  to 
the  necessity  for  holding  the  inquest  (e)  in  his  case  the 
quarter  sessions  may  well  assume  the  ex  post  facto  position 
they  have  presumed  to  occupy  with  the  coroner. 

Even  though  an  inquisition  be  void  as  between  the 
coroner  and  the  county  on  a  claim  for  fees  it  is  valid  for 
all  other  purposes  (/)  such  as  to  commit  a  prisoner  (g). 

Sect.  1 02.  The  coroner's  fees  as  we  have  seen  are  first 
for  viewing  the  body  $2.75.  This  fee  is  however  only  for 
cases  where  the  view  is  made  in  connection  with  an  inquest 
actually  taken  (h).  An  attempt  was  made  in  Watson  v. 
Beaver  County  to  extend  it  to  cases  where  the  coroner  hav- 
ing been  called  upon  to  hold  an  inquest  views  the  body  and 
determines  no  inquest  is  necessary.  But  Wickham,  P.  J., 
held  that  the  fee  bill  did  not  contemplate  compensation  for 
the  coroner  in  such  cases;  he  acknowledged  that  this  was 
a  hardship  to  the  coroner  but  "this"  he  said  "is  a  matter 
for  the  legislature  to  consider"  (t).  In  spite  of  this  recom- 
mendation to  the  assembly,  it  was  not  until  six  years  after 
the  decision  of  Watson  v.  Beaver  County,  that  an  act  was 
finally  passed  making  provision  for  fees  in  such  cases.' 

The  act   (k)   provides  as   follows:     "That  whenever 


(c)  Act  of  27  May,  1841,  Sect.  15,  P.  L.,  404. 

(d)  Pickett  v.  Erie  County,  19  W.  N.  C,  60,  s.  c.  3  Pa.  C.  C.  R., 
23  (1887). 

(e)  Reitlinger's   Case,   2   Kulp,   127,   s.   c.    14  Lane.   Bar,   123;   3 
York,  101;  11  Luz.  L.  Reg.  157  (1882). 

(/)  Reitlinger's  Case  (supra). 

(g)   Picket  v.  Erie  County  (supra). 

(h)  Burnett  v.  Lackawanna  County,  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  95!  Watson  v. 
Beaver  Co.,  9  Pa.,  C.  C.  R.,  495,  s.  c.  27  W.  N.  C,  469  (ifci). 

(t)  In  Watson  v.  Beaver  County  (supra)  and  see  the  remarks  of 
Hemphill  J.  in  McFadgen  v.  Chester  Co.,  10  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  124  s.  c.  7 
Mont  149  (1891),  and  see  Witmore's  Case,  3  Dist.,  699,  s.  c.;  14  Pa. 
C.  C.  R.,  463  d894). 

(*)  Act  of  30  March,  1897,  P.  L,  8;  see  Troutman  v.  Chambers,  9 
Dist,  533  (1900). 


240    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

the  coroner  shall  have  been  called  and  views  a  dead  body 
and  decides  that  no  inquest  is  necessary  he  shall  certify  and 
return  this  fact  as  inquests  are  now  returned  and  for  such 
services  he  shall  receive  the  same  fee  (/)  and  mileage  as  is 
now  allowed  by  law  for  such  view,  when  followed  by  an 
inquest,  such  fee  and  mileage  to  be  paid  as  provided  by  law 
where  an  inquest  is  held."  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  the 
coroner  is  entitled  only  to  the  fees  provided  for  by  the  act 
and  as  he  could  have  no  fees  at  all  before  the  act  if  no  in- 
quest were  held  so  under  the  act  he  can  have  no  fees  for 
swearing  witnesses  at  the  preliminary  examination  (m~). 

Although  the  Act  of  1897  does  not  mention  justices  of 
the  peace  it  has  in  one  case  at  least  (n)  been  construed  in 
pari  matria  with  the  Act  of  1841  "when  a  justice  of  the 
peace  acts  as  coroner  he  must  perform  the  like  duties  and 
should  receive  the  like  fees.  This  plainly  appears  as  the 
intention  of  the  legislature  when  the  two  acts  are  construed 
together"  (0). 

Second  his  fee  for  summoning  and  qualifying  inquest 
drawing  and  returning  the  inquisition  $i. 375^2 •  The  act 
contemplates  the  coroner  shall  himself  summon  the  inquest 
(/>)  and  not  issue  a  precept  to  the  sheriff  or  constable  as  at 
common  law  (q).  If  he  hire  the  constable  therefor  he 
must  pay  for  it  out  of  his  own  pocket  (r). 

Third,  summoning  and  qualifying  each  witness  2$c., 
to  be  paid  out  of  the  goods  and  chattels,  lands  and  tenements 
of  the  slayer,  in  case  of  murder  or  manslaughter,  if  any 


_(/)  Viz.:    $2.75  Troutman  v.  Chambers   (supra.} 

(m)  Fayette  County  Coroner's  Return,  24  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  498  (1900) 
for  a  discussion  of  deputy  coroners  fees  and  the  acts  of  1889,  '93  and 
'97;  see  Fayette  County  Deputy  Coroners  Case,  20  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  641,  s. 
c.  7  Dist.  568  (1898).  Grove's  Case,  26  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  449  (1900). 

(n)  Coroners  Inquests,  28  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  428  (1903). 

(0)  Coroners  Inquests  (supra),  but  see  contra,  Grove's  Case 
(supra). 

(p)  Metzger's  Inquest,  8  Dist,  373  (1899);  Marvin  Shaft  In- 
quest, 3  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  10  (1887). 

(q)  Fleta  Lib.,  I,  cap.  25;  Britton,  cap.  i,  Sect.  5;  2  Male's  Pleas 
of  the  Crown,  59.  The  old  fee  bills  supra,  gave  him  a  fee  for  issuing 
a  precept  to  summon  the  inquest. 

(r)  Metzger's  Inquest  (supra),  in  Re  Coroners  Inquests,  i  Pa.  C. 
C  R.,  14,  s.  c.  3  Kulp,  451 ;  2  Del.  Co.,  446;  3  Lane.  L.  R.,  70  (1885)  ; 
Marvin  Shaft  Inquest,  3  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  10  (1887). 


ACCOUNTS  AND  COMPENSATION  OF  CORONERS      241 

he  hath  otherwise  by  the  county.  But  witnesses  must  come 
of  their  own  accord;  they  are  not  entitled  to  mileage  (s). 
Nor  are  they  entitled  to  witness  fees  (f)  for  it  is  the  pub- 
lic duty  of  every  citizen  to  give  his  testimony  to  the  coroner 
gratis  that  the  ends  of  public  justice  may  be  served  («). 
Indeed  to  allow  one  witness  at  an  inquest  a  fee  is  an  in- 
fraction of  the  fee  bill  (v).  A  witness  at  a  coroner's  in- 
quest is  entitled  to  no  fee  even  though  he  be  an  expert  («/). 
But  a  doctor  who  makes  a  post  mortem  examination  is  in  a 
different  situation  such  services  are  extraordinary  for  he 
could  not  be  forced  to  open  the  body  (JF).  In  Allegheny 
v.  Watts  the  coroner's  jury  could  not  agree  upon  a  verdict 
and  for  the  purpose  of  assisting  them  in  their  determination 
the  coroner  called  in  a  physician  who  made  a  post  mortem 
examination  of  the  body  whereupon  the  jury  agreed.  Upon 
these  facts  it  was  broadly  laid  down  that  a  physician  mak- 
ing a  post  mortem  examination  for  the  coroner  can  hold 
the  county  liable  for  his  fee.  But  the  fee  must  be  only 
reasonable  compensation  (y).  In  other  words  the  coroner 
may  hire  a  physician  to  make  a  post  mortem  examination 
and  charge  the  county  with  his  fee  (2}  so  may  a  justice  of 
the  peace  acting  as  coroner  under  the  act  of  1841  (a). 


(s)  In  re  Coroners'  Inquests  (supra),  in  re  Coroners'  Inquests, 
2  Del.  Co.,  475  (1886). 

(0  Marvin  Shaft  Inquest,  3  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  10  (1887)  ;  Fayette 
County  Coroners  Return,  24  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  498  (1900). 

(w)  Per  Gibson  C.  J.  in  Allegheny  v.  Watts,  3  Pa.  St.,  462  (1846), 
and  see  in  re  Coroners'  Inquests  (supra),  Marvin  Shaft  Inquest 
(supra),  Fayette  County  Coroners  Return  (supra). 

(v)  Allegheny  v.  Watts,  3  Pa.  St.,  462  (1846)  followed  Com- 
monwealth v.  Higgins,  2  Kulp,  269  (1889). 

(w)  Allegheny  v.  Watts  (supra),  Commonwealth  v.  Higgins 
(supra). 

(*•)  Allegheny  v.  Watts  (supra). 

(y)  Allegheny  v.  Watts  (supra),  in  re  Coroners'  Inquests,  i  Pa. 
C  C.  R.,  14,  s.  c.  3  Kulp,  451;  2  Del.  Co.,  446  (1885)  ;  Metzger's  In- 
quest (supra),  Commonwealth  v.  Harman,  4  Pa.  St.,  269,  affirming  6 
P.  L.  ].,  120  (1846);  Northampton  County  v.  Innes,  26  Pa.  St.,  156 
(1856);  3  P.  L.  ].,  644;  Lancaster  County  v.  Mishler,  100  Pa. 
St.,  624  (1882)  ;  Walker  v.  McKean,  31  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  664  (1005)  ;  Alle- 
gheny County  v.  Shaw,  34  Pa.  St.,  301  (1859),  and  see  7  P.  L.  ].,  217; 
12  W.  N.  C.,  312 ;  14  Lane.  Bar,  101 ;  30  Pitts.  L.  ].,  361 ;  39  L.  I.,  459, 
and  this  even  though  the  county  commissioners  had  hired  a  regular 
physician  at  a  fixed  salary  (ibid.) 

(*)  Allegheny  v.  Watts  (supra). 

(a)  Pickett  v.  Erie  County,  19  W.  N.  C.,  60,  s.  c.  3  Pa.  C.  C.  R., 


242    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

Luzerne  County  v.  Day  (&)  appears  at  first  blush  to  be  con- 
trary to  this  general  rule,  but  that  case  only  decides  that  the 
physician  must  demand  his  fee  of  the  county  commission- 
ers, before  he  can  sue  for  it.  An  autopsy  is  not  always  neces- 
sary (c)  and  whether  it  is  or  not  is  for  the  coroner  to  de- 
termine (d).  It  follows  from  this  that  should  it  be  made 
to  appear  by  the  post  mortem  examination  that  the  death 
was  due  to  natural  causes,  the  county  court  ever  careful  of 
the  local  purse  might  refuse  the  coroner  his  fees,  but  the 
physician  could  still  demand  and  recover  reasonable  com- 
pensation for  his  services.  Indeed,  though  the  coroner  who 
held  the  inquest  was  not  de  jure  an  officer,  the  county  is 
liable  to  the  doctor.  "When  a  physician  is  summoned  to  aid 
in  a  post  mortem  examination  it  is  not  his  business  to  insti- 
tute a  preliminary  investigation  to  determine  whether  the 
inquest  should  be  held  or  not.  *  *  *  It  is  sufficient  for 
him  to  know  that  the  proper  officer  of  the  county  requires 
his  services"  (<?).  Only  where  it  can  be  proved  that  the 
coroner  and  physician  did  not  act  in  good  faith  can  the  lat- 
ter's  claim  be  defeated  (/). 

Evidently  there  was  considerable  difficulty  and  differ- 
ence of  opinion  as  to  what  is  a  reasonable  fee,  for  in  1848, 
only  two  years  after  the  decision  in  Allegheny  v.  Watts,  a 
special  act  (g)  was  passed  to  the  effect  that  in  certain  coun- 
ties (fr)  ten  dollars  should  be  deemed  a  reasonable  fee,  un- 


23  (1887)  ;  Coroners  Inquests,  28  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  428  (1903)  ;  Lee's  Case, 
9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  474  (1891). 

(b)  23  Pa.  St.,  141  (1854). 

(c)  Even  though  W.  A.  Stokes  and  E.  Ingersoll  in  their  notes  to 
Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  say  it  is  necessary  in  every  case  of  homi- 
cide citing  Commonwealth  v.  Harman. 

(d)  Walker  v.  McKean  County,  31  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  664  (1905)  citing 
Allegheny  v.  Watts  (supra) 

(e)  Pickett  v.  Erie  County  (supra),  Northampton  County  v.  Innes 
(supra). 

(/)  Walker  v.  McKean  County  (supra). 

(g)  The  Act  of  8  February,  1848,  Sect,  i  P.  L.  29. 

(h)  Berks  and  Lancaster  repealed  as  to  Berks  2nd  April,  1856. 
Sect,  i  P.  L.,  219,  extended  to  Washington  County  by  the  Act  of  2nd 
April,  1867,  Sect,  i  P.  L.,  677,  to  Northumberland  by  the  Act  of  roth 
April,  1873,  P.  L.  708,  to  Bucks  and  Montgomery  by  the  Act  of  14 
March,  1860,  Sect.  2  P.  L.  167,  to  Indiana  by  the  Act  of  14  March,  1857, 
Sect,  i  P.  L.  88.  re-enacted  by  the  Act  of  27  February,  1863,  Sect.  2  P. 
L.  82,  to  Blair  by  the  Act  of  15  April,  1853,  Sect.  4  P.  L.  453,  to  Arm- 


ACCOUNTS  AND  COMPENSATION  OF  CORONERS      243 

less  the  county  commissioners  should  think  more  was  due, 
in  which  case  they  might  pay  whatever  sum  they  thought 
fit. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  under  the  early  acts  the  jurors 
were  always  given  fees  (*").  The  Act  of  1814  makes  no 
provision  for  them.  The  Act  of  1821  (&)  grants  fees  to 
grand  and  pettit  jurors,  but  makes  no  mention  of  coroners 
jurors.  The  Act  of  1834  gave  all  jurors  one  dollars  per 
day  and  six  and  a  quarter  cents  a  mile  (/).  The  Act  of 
1879  seems  to  be  in  force  at  present  and  gives  them  one 
dollar  per  day  whenever  the  time  employed  does  not  exceed 
six  hours  and  when  it  does,  one  dollar  and  a  half,  but  mile- 
age is  expressly  forbidden  (w).  The  coroner  should  be 
careful  to  state  in  his  return  the  length  of  time  each  day 
the  jurors  were  employed  (w). 

Finally  mileage  from  the  court  house  to  the  place  of 
viewing  the  body.  A  strange  misapprehension  arose  (0) 


strong  by  the  Act  of  I  May,  1860,  P.  L.,  437,  repealed  II  May  1872,  P. 
L.  755.  fifteen  dollars  is  a  reasonable  fee  in  Northampton  on  like  con- 
ditions by  the  Act  of  19  April  1856,  Sect,  i  P.  L.,  461,  ten  dollars  in 
Butler  by  the  Act  of  18  March,  1864,  Sect.  I  P.  L.  60,  in  Schuylkill  and 
Mercer  by  the  Act  of  28  June,  1871,  Sect,  i  P.  L.  1380  in  Allegheny 
the  fee  is  $10  for  a  superficial  examination,  $20  if  there  is  cutting  to 
be  done  before  decomposition  has  taken  place  and  $40  if  the  cutting  is 
to  be  done  after  decomposition  has  taken  place  by  the  Act  of  n  April 
1866,  Sect,  i  P.  L.  603. 

(i)  But  unlike  the  physician's  fees  those  of  the  jury  stand  or  fall 
with  those  of  the  coroner,  Burnett  v.  Lackawanna  County,  9  Pa.  C.  C. 
R.  95,  s.  c.  i  Lack.  Jur.,  410  (1890)  which  causes  the  reporter  T.  D. 
Wells,  Esq.,  to  remark  that  the  rule  is  very  unjust  which  fines  the 
juror  if  he  does  not  serve  and  then  refuses  to  pay  him  if  he  does 
serve. 

(k)  22  February,  1821,  Sect.  12;  7  Sm.  L.  377. 

(/)  April  14,  1834,  P.  L.  366,  see  Rambo  v.  Chester  County  No.  2, 
i  Chester  County  416  (1878).  There  are  a  number  of  local  acts  on 
the  subject.  See  Act  of  2nd  April,  1867,  Sect,  i  P.  L.  676,  and  5  Feb- 
ruary, 1869,  P.  L.  118,  as  to  Venango,  Act  of  10  February,  1870  Sect,  i 
P.  L.  123,  as  to  Washington,  Erie,  Beaver,  Carbon,  Mercer  and  Venan- 
go. Act  of  31  January  1833,  Sect.  2  P.  L.,  21  as  to  Allegheny ;  Act  of 
26  March,  1860,  P.  L.  278,  as  to  Luzerne.  The  Act  of  1873  P.  L.  37, 
superseded  the  former  acts  and  was  in  turn  superseded  by  the  Act  of 

1879- 

(m)  Act  of  ii  June,  1897,  P.  L.  147;  this  repeals  the  Act  of  14 
April,  1834,  Sect.  138,  giving  all  of  jurors  6%  cents  for  every  mile 
traveled,  Coroners  Inquest,  i  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  677,  s.  c.  2  Del.  Co.  446 
(1885)  ;  Marvin  Shaft  Inquest  3  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  10  (1887).  Certainly  as 
mileage  is  forbidden  the  coroner  cannot  charge  the  county  with  hack 
hire  for  the  jurors,  Marvin  Shaft  Inquest  (supra). 

(n)  Marvin  Shaft  Inquest  (supra.) 

(o)  Coroners  Inquests  (supra). 


244    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

that  the  case  of  Rambo  v.  Chester  County,  No.  i,  i  Chester 
County  414  (1878)  decided  that  the  Sheriff's  Fee  Bill  of 
1868  superseded  the  Act  of  1814,  in  its  allowance  as  to 
mileage  but  this  is  not  correct;  that  case  expressly  decides 
that  the  Sheriff's  Fee  Bill  of  1868  only  applies  to  cases 
where  the  coroner  is  acting  as  sheriff  and  says  that  the 
coroner  in  performing  his  own  services  is  to  be  limited 
to  the  Act  of  1814  (/>).  Wherever  the  coroner  acts  as 
sheriff  he  receives  the  same  compensation  as  the  sheriff  re- 
ceives for  similar  services  (#). 

In  Bucks  County  Coroners'  Inquisitions  (r)  it  was  held 
that  the  coroner  could  only  charge  for  the  miles  actually 
travelled  and  not  from  the  court  house  (.$•)  to  the  place  where 
the  body  was  found  if  it  so  be  that  that  were  a  greater 
distance. 

Sect.  103.  It  was  decided  in  Allegheny  v.  Watts  (0 
that  the  coroner  has  authority  to  charge  the  county  the 
expenses  of  all  services  ancillary  to  the  inquisition.  This 
rule  was  extended  by  the  case  of  Pickett  v.  Erie  County 
(«).  But  this  does  not  include  the  costs  of  livery  hire  nor 
a  stenographer  to  take  the  notes  of  testimony  (v*).  Where 
the  coroner  found  a  body  floating  in  the  river  viewed  it  and 
decided  no  inquest  was  necessary ;  the  plaintiffs  having  ship- 
ped the  body  to  its  friends,  sued  the  county  for  the  costs, 
it  was  held  the  county  was  not  liable  (w). 

Sect.  104.  A  peculiar  point  has  arisen  in  connection 
with  the  performance  of  the  coroner's  duties  under  the  Act 

(/>)  And  this  view  was  affirmed  Coroners  Inquests  (supra),  Cor- 
oners Inquests,  2  Del.  Co.  475  (1886),  Marvin  Shaft  Inquest  (supra), 
citing  Clerk  v.  Barber,  2  Law  Times  N.  S.  61. 

(q)  By  the  Act  of  28  March,  1814,  Sect.  19  P.  L.  363  reaffirmed 
except  as  to  Allegheny,  Lancaster,  Montgomery,  Philadelphia,  Beaver 
and  Washington,  and  as  to  the  sheriff  of  Dauphin  by  the  Act  of  2  April, 
1868,  P.  L.  14,  and  made  general  by  the  Act  of  12  Tune,  1878,  Sect.  2 
P.  L.  188. 

(r)  17  Pa.  C.  C  R.,  553  (1894)- 

(s)  Under  the  Act  of  1867  extended  to  Bucks  in  1868. 

(0  3  Pa.  St.,  462  (1846). 

(M)  19  W.  N.  C.  60,  s.  c.  3  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  23  (1887)  a  charge  for 
a  watchman  is  an  auxiliary  expense  but  not  coroner's  clerk  hire,  Weaver 
v.  Northampton  County,  2  Lehigh  Valley,  408  (1887). 

(v)  Marvin  Shaft  Inquest  (supra}. 

(vf)  Carson  v.  Forrest  Co.  14  Dist.  818  s.  c.  9  Del.  490,  3  Pa 
J.  L.  R.,  262  (1905). 


ACCOUNTS  AND  COMPENSATION  OF  CORONERS      245 

of  1897,  by  his  deputy.  Judge  Mestrezat  has  given  us  a 
lucid  opinion  on  this  point  (#)  which  it  may  be  well  to 
quote  at  length. 

"On  the  Qth  of  May,  1889,  an  Act  of  Assembly  was 
approved  entitled  'An  Act  to  provide  for  the  appointing 
of  deputy  coroners  in  the  several  counties  of  this  Com- 
monwealth/ The  first  section  of  this  act  authorized  the 
coroner  to  appoint  deputies.  The  second  section  provided 
as  follows:  'That  such  person  so  deputized  by  him  as 
aforesaid  shall  receive,  for  such  services  as  they  may  per- 
form by  virtue  of  said  appointment,  the  same  fees  as  are 
now  provided  by  law  for  similar  services  rendered  by  said 
coroner,  and  the  same  shall  be  paid  from  such  funds  and  at 
such  places  as  the  said  fees  of  the  said  coroner  are  now 
by  law  payable.'  The  third  and  last  section  of  the  Act 
repealed  all  inconsistent  acts  or  parts  thereof. 

"On  June  6,  1893,  an  act  was  approved  entitled  'An 
Act  to  provide  for  the  appointment  of  one  or  more  deputy 
coroners  and  defining  their  power  and  duties  in  the  several 
counties  of  this  commonwealth!'  The  first  section  of  this 
act  authorizes  the  coroner  to  'appoint  one  or  more  deputies 
to  act  in  his  place  and  stead  as  he  may  deem  proper  and 
necessary.'  The  second  section  provides  that  'such  deputy 
or  deputies  so  appointed  shall  have  like  power  to  hold  in- 
quests to  select,  summon  and  compel  the  attendance  of 
jurors  and  witnesses  and  to  administer  oaths.'  The  powers 
and  duties  of  the  deputy  coroner  were  not  designated  or 
limited  by  the  Act  of  1889.  They  are  by  the  Act  of  1893. 

"It  will  be  observed  that  the  Act  of  1893  supplies  the 
first  section  of  the  Act  of  1889.  The  first  section  of  the  Act 
of  1893,  as  we  nave  seen»  authorizes  the  appointment  of 
deputies,  and  the  second  section  defines  their  powers.  The 
second  section  of  the  Act  of  1889,  is  not  repealed  or  sup- 
plied by  the  Act  of  1893,  and  provides  for  the  payment  of 


(x)  Fayette  County  Deputy  Coroner's  Case,  20  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  641, 
8.  c.  7  Dist.,  568  (1898);  Grove's  Case,  26  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  449  (1900); 
and  see  also  Troutman  v.  Chambers,  9  Dist,  533  (1900),  and  Echard  v. 
Fayette  County,  5  Dist.,  371  s.  c.  26  P.  L.  J.,  461 ;  43  P.  L.  J.,  461  (o.  s.) 
(1896)  ;  Fogarty  v.  Schuylkill  County,  13  Pa.  C.  C  R.,  454  (1893). 


246    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

the  deputy  coroner.     Such  is  the  general  legislation  on  this 
subject  in  the  State  to-day. 

"It  is  under  this  legislation  and  the  Act  of  1897,  that 
the  deputy  coroners  claim  the  fees  for  making  these  in- 
vestigations. The  Act  of  1897,  is  entitled  'An  act  to  provide 
for  the  payment  and  mileage  of  coroners  for  viewing  a 
dead  body  where  no  inquest  is  held.'  There  is  but  one  sec- 
tion in  this  act,  and  it  is  as  follows:  'That  whenever  the 
coroner  shall  have  been  called  and  views  a  dead  body  and 
decides  that  no  inquest  is  necessary,  he  shall  certify  and 
return  this  fact  as  inquests  are  now  returned;  and  for  such 
services  he  shall  receive  the  same  fee  and  mileage  as  is  now 
allowed  by  law  for  such  view,  when  followed  by  an  inquest ; 
said  fee  and  mileage  to  be  paid  as  provided  by  law  where 
an  inquest  is  held.' 

"It  is  to  be  observed,  therefore,  that  the  power,  duties 
and  compensation  of  deputy  coroners  in  the  performance 
of  their  judicial  functions  are  wholly  dependent  upon  statu- 
tory enactment.  At  common  law,  as  we  have  seen,  the 
coroner  could  not  appoint  a  deputy,  and  there  was  no  pro- 
vision for  fees  for  either  a  coroner  or  his  deputy.  Admit- 
ting for  the  present  the  constitutionality  of  the  Act  of  1889, 
we  cannot  see  that  the  deputy  coroners  are  entitled  to  the 
fees  claimed  in  the  returns  they  have  made  in  this  proceed- 
ing. 

"The  first  section  of  the  Act  of  1893,  authorizes  the 
appointment  by  the  coroner  of  one  or  more  deputies.  But 
the  powers  of  these  deputies  are  not  general,  but  are  defined 
and  limited  by  the  second  section  of  that  act.  They  have 
like  power  with  the  coroner  'to  hold  inquests,  to  select,  sum- 
mon and  compel  the  attendance  of  jurors  and  witnesses  and 
to  administer  oaths.'  For  these,  and  no  other  services,  com- 
pensation is  provided  by  the  Act  of  1889. 

The  title  of  the  Act  of  1897  shows  that  said  act  was 
intended  to  provide  compensation  for  the  coroner  for  the 
services  therein  named.  These  services  are  to  be  performed 
by  the  coroner.  They  are  not  the  services  mentioned  in  the 
second  section  o-f  the  Act  of  1893,  which  a  deputy  is  au- 
thorized to  perform,  and  hence  he  cannot  perform  them. 


ACCOUNTS  AND  COMPENSATION  OF  CORONERS      247 

Unless,  therefore,  there  is  some  other  legislation  that  brings 
the  deputy  coroner  within  the  purview  of  the  Act  of  1897, 
he  has  no  right  to  fees  for  performing  the  services  required 
in  said  act.  We  know  of  no  such  legislation.  As  said 
above,  the  Act  of  1893,  authorizing  the  coroner  to  appoint 
deputies,  prescribed  the  power  and  authority  of  such  ap- 
pointees. The  deputy  coroner  having  no  power  under  the 
Act  of  1893,  to  perform  the  services  mentioned  in  the  Act 
of  1897  and  being  allowed  fees  for  only  'such  services  as  he 
may  perform  by  virtue  of  his  appointment,'  cannot  recover 
fees  for  services  rendered  under  the  Act  of  1897." 

Sect.  105.  Where  more  than  one  inquest  is  held  at  one 
and  the  same  time  another  peculiar  question  arises.  To  what 
fees  are  the  coroner  and  his  jury  entitled?  In  Fayette 
County  v.  Batton  (x}  there  were  nineteen  several  views  and 
fees  were  allowed  for  nineteen  cases.  But  nowhere, 
where  there  has  been  one  view  only  have  fees  been  allowed 
for  mileage,  more  than  once  (y).  The  witnesses  had  only 
to  be  summoned  once  but  they  had  to  be  qualified  in  each 
case,  that  fee  therefore  was  paid  in  each  case  (2).  But 
whether  or  not  the  jury  should  be  paid  for  more  than  one 
view  is  a  matter  of  doubt,  but  so  long  as  the  same  jury  acts 
in  each  case  their  fees  can  only  be  paid  once  (a). 

Sect.  1 06.  Section  5  of  Article  14  of  the  State  Con- 
stitution (b)  provides  that  in  counties  of  over  150,000  in- 
habitants the  county  officers  shall  be  paid  by  salary  and  not 
by  fees.  This  section  has  been  executed  by  a  series  of  acts 
which  provide  in  substance  that  in  counties  of  over  one  mil- 
lion inhabitants  the  salary  of  the  coroner  shall  be  eight  thou- 
sand dollars  (bb),  in  counties  of  over  800,000  inhabitants 


(x)  108  Pa.  St.,  591  (1885). 

(y)  Rambo  v.  Chester  Co.  No.  2,  i  Chester  Co.  416  (1878)  ;  Anon- 
ymous Q.  S.  Fayette  Co.  No.  117,  December  Sessions  1883,  Mss.  Francis 
v.  Tioga  County,  8  Pa.  C.  C.  R.,  163  (1889)  ;  Weaver  v.  Northampton 
County,  2  Lehigh  Valley,  408  (1887). 

(s)  Rambo  v.  Chester  Co.  No.  2  (supra),  Weaver  v.  Northamp- 
ton County,  (supra'),  Francis  v.  Tioga  County  (supra). 

(a)  Weaver  v.  Northampton  County  (supra),  Rambo  v.  Chester 
County  No.  2  (supra). 

(&)   i  Purdon's  Digest  (i3th  Ed.)  p.  204. 

(bb)  Act  of  i  June,  1911,  P.  L.  No.  220. 


248    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

and  less  than  one  million  inhabitants  (c),  the  salary  of  the 
coroner  shall  be  five  thousand  dollars  (rf),  in  counties  of 
over  500,000  and  less  than  800,000  inhabitants  (e)  the  sal- 
ary of  the  coroner  shall  be  five  thousand  dollars  (/).  In 
counties  having  more  than  250,000  and  less  than  500,000 
inhabitants  the  salary  of  the  coroner  is  two  thousand  dol- 
lars (g),  in  counties  having  over  150,000  and  less  than 
250,000  the  salary  of  the  coroner  shall  be  two  thousand 
dollars  (/»). 

In  all  these  acts  however  (t)  the  coroner's  salary  is  only 
to  be  paid  to  the  full  amount  provided  the  fees  earned  by 
him  less  the  amounts  paid  to  his  deputy  and  clerk  equal  or 
exceed  the  amount  of  his  salary  (&)  so  that  all  the  evils 
of  the  fee  system  are  retained  as  far  as  possible. 


(c)  Act  of  21  March,  1899,  Sect,  i,  P.  L.  12,  this  act  supersedes 
the  local  acts  relating  to  Philadelphia  County,  viz.,  the  Act  of  16 
April,  1845,  Sect.  9,  P.  L.  539 ;  the  Act  of  12  April,  1856,  Sect,  i,  P.  L. 
324 ;  the  Act  of  22  March,  1867,  Sects,  i,  2  and  3  P.  L.  532 ;  and  the  Act 
of  18  March,  1869,  Sect,  i,  P.  L.  404. 

(rf)  And  the  deputy  coroner  $2,500. 

(e)  Act  of  21  March,  1899,  Sect.  I,  P.  L.  12,  this  supersedes  the 
special  Act  of  6  March,  1872,  Sect.  3,  P.  L.  209  relating  to  Allegheny 
County. 

(/)  And  the  assistant  coroner  $2,000. 

(g)  Act  of  10  July,  1901,  Sect.  I,  P.  L.  641. 

(A)  Act  of  2  July,  1895,  Sect.  I,  P.  L.  424. 

(i)  They  are  all  amendments  or  supplements  to  the  Act  of  31 
March  1876,  P.  L.  13. 

(&)  Philadelphia  v.  Glibert,  14  Phila.,  212;  s.  c.  37  Legal  Int.,  376 
(1880);  Bleiler  v.  Muldoon,  16  Pa.  Superior,  553  (1901),  the  former 
case,  however,  decides  that  the  fees  upon  which  the  total  sums  are  to 
be  calculated  are  those  provided  by  the  Act  of  16  April,  1845,  Sect.  9, 
P.  L.  539,  and  22  March,  1867  Sects  i,  2  and  3,  P.  L.  532. 


CONCLUSION. 

From  what  we  have  seen  of  the  condition  of  the  law 
in  Pennsylvania,  we  cannot  but  dwell  for  a  few  moments 
on  the  needful  changes  that  frequently  suggest  themselves. 
It  is  easy  to  criticise  and  difficult  to  construct.  Such  is  the 
state  of  the  law  on  the  subject  that  hasty  legislation  would 
in  all  probability  cause  more  confusion  than  already  exists, 
but  it  is  unquestionable  that  legislation  of  a  thorough  char- 
acter is  needed  in  this  State  to  bring  order  out  of  chaos. 
The  Act  of  1907  was  not  even  a  step  towards  this.  The 
whole  matter  should  be  carefully  gone  over  and  the  law 
codified.  We  cannot  agree  with  the  Court  who  said  in 
Groves  Case,  26  Pa.,  C.  C.  R.  449  (1900),  "the  true  remedy 
for  the  abuses  in  the  coroner's  office  is  its  absolute  abolition. 
The  original  purpose  of  investigating  crime  through  it,  is 
better  accomplished  in  the  district  attorney's  office,  without 
being  hampered  by  meddlesome  and  consequential  officers. 
We  have  had  at  least  one  instance  where  the  coroner's 
blustering  interference  and  bombast  actually  obstructed  the 
investigation  of  a  serious  murder."  All  of  which  may  be 
true,  but  no  reason  for  the  Court's  conclusion. 

An  act  putting  all  coroners  on  a  salary  basis  freed  from 
the  necessity  of  making  his  fees  pay  the  salary  would  be  of 
benefit  to  the  community  for  the  coroner  would  no  longer 
need  to  take  unnecessary  inquests  that  he  might  get  fees 
therefor,  they  would  no  longer  "obtrude  themselves  into 
private  families  to  their  great  annoyance  and  discomfort 
without  any  pretence  of  the  deceased  having  died  otherwise 
than  a  natural  death,"  as  was  said  by  Lord  Ellenborough, 
Rex  v.  Justices  of  Kent,  n  East,  229.  The  judges  always 
careful  of  the  taxpayers  purse  would  not  need  to  review  the 
coroner's  accounts  and  feel  constrained  to  stretch  every 
point  to  hold  every  inquest  illegal  that  did  not  produce  a 
criminal,  so  discouraging  the  investigation  of  crime.  The 
whole  matter  should  be  referred  to  a  commission  and  a  com- 
prehensive act  passed  which  would  repeal  the  act  of  fourth 
Edward  I  and  put  the  whole  office  on  a  modern  basis. 


APPENDICES. 
A.   FORM  OF  CORONER'S  BOND  AND  RECOGNIZANCE. 

The  form  of  recognizance  to  be  taken  from  the  coro- 
ner of  each  county,  and  his  sureties,  shall  be  as  follows,  to 
wit:  You,  A.  B.  and  C.  D.  and  E.  F.  acknowledge  that 
you  owe  the  Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania  the  sum  of 
dollars  to  be  levied  and  made  of  your 
several  goods  and  chattels,  lands  and  tenements  upon  con- 
dition that  you,  A.  B.,  shall  and  do  well  and  truly  perform 
all  and  singular  the  duties  to  the  office  of  coroner  of  the 
County  of  X.  appertaining  to  which  you  have  been  elected, 
and  this  recognizance  to  be  void  or  else  to  be  and  remain 
in  full  force  and  virtue.  Taken  and  acknowledged  the 
day  of  ,  A.  D. 

Before  me 
Recorder  of  Deeds,  for  the  County  of 

The  form  of  bond  to  be  given  by  the  coroner  and  his 
sureties,  shall  be  as  follows,  to  wit :  Know  all  men  by  these 
presents,  that  we,  A.  B.  as  principal,  and  C.  D.  and  E.  F. 
as  sureties,  are  held  and  firmly  bound  unto  the  Common- 
wealth of  Pennsylvania  in  the  sum  of  dollars, 
to  be  paid  unto  the  said  Commonwealth  for  the  uses,  intents 
and  purposes  declared  and  appointed  by  law,  to  which  pay- 
ment well  and  truly  to  be  made  we  bind  and  oblige  our- 
selves, our  heirs,  executors,  administrators  and  successors, 
jointly  and  severally  firmly  by  these  presents. 

Sealed  with  our  seals  and  dated  the  day  of 

,  Anno  Domini  19  . 

The  condition  of  the  above  obligation  is  such  that  if 
the  above  bounden  A.  B.,  who  has  been  elected  coroner  of 
the  County  of  X.,  shall  well  and  truly  perform  all  and  sin- 
gular the  duties  to  the  said  office  of  coroner  appertaining, 
then  this  obligation  to  be  void  or  else  to  remain  in  full  force 
and  virtue. 

Sealed  and  delivered 
in  presence  of : 
(250) 


APPENDICES  251 

B.     OATH  OF  JURORS  GIVEN  IN  THE  MIRROR. 

"You  shall  say  by  your  oath  concerning  the  death  of 
him  whom  you  have  seen  whether  he  died  by  felony  or 
misadventure.  If  from  felony  whether  by  his  own  felony 
or  by  another,  if  from  misadventure  whether  it  came  from 
God  or  man,  if  from  famine,  whether  from  poverty  or  com- 
mon pestelence,  and  you  shall  say  from  whence  he  came  and 
who  he  was.  And  if  he  died  from  another's  felony  who 
were  principals  and  who  were  assessories  and  also  if  the 
hue  and  cry  were  duly  raised  or  not,  and  if  the  neighbors 
ran  thither  as  was  right  or  not,  and  if  the  menee  was  rightly 
followed  or  not.  Likewise  who  threatened  his  life  or  limb 
and  who  were  pledges  for  his  peace,  and  you  shall  say  if  he 
died  through  long  imprisonment  or  torment,  and  by  whose 
action  he  was  further  from  life  or  nearer  to  death.  And 
likewise  all  circumstances  which  could  furnish  ground  for 
presumption.  In  cases  where  the  person  died  from  drown- 
ing or  falling  or  other  visitation  of  God  and  had  not  the 
power  of  speaking  before  his  death  you  are  to  say  the 
names  of  the  finders  and  the  four  nearest  neighbors  who 
were  his  kinsfolk.  And  further  if  he  were  killed  there  or 
elsewhere  and  if  elsewhere  by  whom  and  how  he  was 
brought  there.  And  then  the  value  of  the  deodand,  its 
species  and  to  whose  hand  it  has  come." 


C.    FORFEITURE  FOR  FLIGHT  FROM  STAUNDEFORD's  PLEAS  OF 
THE   CROWN. 

A  man  indicted  before  the  coroner  for  the  death  of 
another  before  whom  it  is  also  found  by  the  same  indict- 
ment that  he  fled  on  account  of  the  said  felony  in  such 
case  notwithstanding  that  the  jury  which  acquits  him  says, 
that  he  did  not  flee  for  the  said  felony  all  his  goods  are  for- 
feited as  appears  in  Fitzherbert  title  Forfeiture,  p.  35,  26. 
For  the  king  in  such  case  is  able  to  hold  that  by  his  record 
which  is  to  his  own  advantage.  And  such  is  the  record 
of  the  coroner.  The  same  rule  applies  if  one  indicted  for 
felony  is  acquitted  and  the  jury  which  acquits  him  says  he 


252    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

did  fly  for  the  same  felony,  Fitz.  tit.  Cor.  296,  344-32 
and  it  is  an  ancient  law  of  the  coroner  of  which  Bracton 
and  Britton  both  make  mention.  *  *  *  * 

For  notwithstanding  his  acquittal  still  he  is  to  be 
suspected  of  the  felony  for  the  vehement  presumption 
"which  has  risen  against  him"  also  his  goods  through  his 
"flight  or  retreat"  as  by  the  indictment.  But  he  against 
whom  the  inquest  finds  fugam  fecit  whether  it  is  traver- 
sable  or  not  is  a  question.  For  nothing  concerning  them  is 
other  than  an  inquest  of  office  as  to  that  part  of  their  ver- 
dict which  concerns  flight.  And  yet  by  that  it  is  not  bound 
that  they  have  to  be  traversed  and  the  reason  is  because 
they  are  only  chattels  for  which  no  traverse  is  given  against 
the  king  by  any  law  yet  made  for  the  law  reputes  chattels 
among  the  minima  de  quibus  non  curat  and  for  this  rea- 
son it  will  be  good  for  the  coroner  and  judge  inquests  to  be 
discreet  and  circumspect  to  see  that  the  jury  are  not  to  the 
smallest  extent  seduced  either  by  lack  of  evidence  or  through 
ignorance  to  the  annullment  of  that  against  which  they 
will  give  verdict  and  which  the  circumspection  of  the  judge 
avoids,  see  4  H  7  f  18,  for  he  abridges  the  coroner  from 
one  power  which  he  would  have  usurped  thus  "in  inquiring 
concerning  those  who  were  accessories  after  the  murder 
or  homicide."  For  as  to  such  he  is  not  to  interfere  because 
that  one  who  was  killed  did  not  come  to  his  death  by  them. 
But  he  has  to  interfere  only  as  to  those  who  were  the 
causes  of  the  death  and  those  were  the  principals  and  ac- 
cessories before  the  fact.  Therefore  when  he  indicts  one 
because  he  has  feloniously  received  the  murderer  and  be- 
cause he  made  a  flight,  the  indictment  is  void,  and  conse- 
quently the  fugam  fecit  as  appears  in  Fitz.,  p.  10.,  and  thus 
note  that  a  fugam  fecit  presented  before  the  coroner  against 
one  who  is  accessory  before  the  fact  will  give  forfeiture 
just  as  much  it  will  do  so  where  it  is  presented  against 
that  one  who  is  the  principal  felon.  The  rule  is  the  same 
where  the  jury  which  acquits  an  accessory  finds  that  he 
fled  for  that  felony.  And  in  such  d'arraine  case  of  ac- 
quittal before  the  justices  it  is  not  material  that  he  was 
accessory  before  the  fact  or  after  for  they  have  sufficient 
power  to  inquire  and  by  their  verdict  he  will  forfeit  in 


APPENDICES  253 

both  cases.  Likewise  one  indicted,  except  for  petty 
larceny,  is  acquitted  yet  if  it  were  found  that  he  fled  his 
chattels  would  be  forfeited  as  appears,  Fitz.  406,  and  note 
in  the  same  manner  that  one  will  forfeit  his  chattels  he  will 
forfeit  them  in  the  same  way  notwithstanding  that  he  has 
his  pardon  for  the  said  felony,  Fitz.  338,  &c.  For  the 
charter  of  pardon  continues  the  presumption  against  him 
that  he  did  the  felony  rather  than  take  it  away,  Fitz.  339, 
where  one  was  presented  before  the  justices  in  Eyre  for 
having  killed  a  man  and  that  he  had  his  charter  of  pardon 
for  it.  And  yet  notwithstanding  this,  they  adjudge  that 
his  goods  be  forfeited.  And  yet  in  the  book  it  does  not 
appear  that  there  was  any  fugam  fecit  presented.  And 
moreover  it  is  a  question  whether  this  is  law  or  not.  And 
note  that  this  fugam  fecit  is  meant  as  much  concerning  a 
fugitive  after  he  is  arrested  for  the  felony  as  it  is  where 
he  fled  before  the  arrest,  Fitz.  289-290,  312,  where  it  ap- 
pears also  that  if  on  his  flight  he  is  killed  by  those  who 
would  have  arrested  him  and  it  is  presented  before  the 
justices  in  Eyre  or  other  justices  of  record,  who  have  power 
to  inquire  he  forfeits  his  goods.  And  there  again  he  is  in  a 
case  that  he  cannot  be  acquitted  or  attainted  of  the  felony 
but  it  follows  if  he  remains  in  life  for  in  such  case  he 
forfeits  nothing  under  the  fugam  fecit  found  if  it  is  not 
also  a  felony. 


D.     PORTIONS    OF    THE    SO-CALLED    STATUTE    OF    4    EDWARD    I 
NOW   IN   FORCE  IN   PENNSYLVANIA. 

"These  things  are  to  be  inquired  by  the  coroner.  *  *  * 
First,  when  the  coroners  *  *  *  have  command  *  *  *  from 
the  good  men  of  the  county  to  go  where  any  are  slain  or 
suddenly  dead  *  *  *  they  ought  forthwith  to  go  and  com- 
mand *  *  *  (a  jury)  to  be  before  them  in  such  place  and 
when  they  shall  be  come  thither  the  coroner  ought  upon  the 
oath  of  them  to  make  inquiry  in  this  manner  to  wit:  if  it 
be  of  a  person  slain  it  is  first  to  be  inquired  where  he  was 
slain  to  wit  whether  it  were  in  a  field  or  in  a  house  or  at 
any  wrestling  or  at  a  tavern  or  in  any  company  and  whether 
any  and  who  was  there.  In  like  manner  it  is  to  be  in- 
•quired  whether  any  and  what  persons  are  culpable  either 


254    OFFICE  AND  DUTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  CORONERS 

of  the  fact  or  of  the  force  and  who  were  present,  men  or 
women,  of  what  age  soever  they  be,  so  that  they  can  speak 
and  have  any  discretion.  *  *  *  But  if  any  such  man  be 
slain  in  the  fields  or  in  the  woods  and  be  found  there,  it 
is  first  to  be  seen  whether  he  were  slain  there  or  not;  if  he 
were  brought  thither  let  them  trace  the  steps  if  they  pos- 
sibly can  of  those  who  brought  the  body  thither,  whether 
horses  brought  it  or  a  cart,  if  perchance  it  were  brought  by 
a  horse  or  cart.  Let  it  be  inquired  also  whether  the  person 
slain  were  known  or  were  a  stranger,  and  where  he  lodged 
the  night  before.  *  *  *  These  things  being  inquired  the 
bodies  of  the  persons  dead  or  slain  shall  be  forthwith  buried. 
"In  like  manner  it  is  to  be  inquired  of  them  that  are 
drowned  or  suddenly  dead;  and  afterwards  it  is  to  be 
seen  of  such  bodies  whether  the  persons  were  so  drowned 
or  slain  or  strangled  by  the  mark  on  the  neck,  or  by  a  mark 
on  any  of  the  limbs  or  by  any  hurt  found  on  the  body  and 
so  they  are  to  proceed  in  form  aforesaid  *  *  *." 


E.    FORM  OF  RETURN  GIVEN  BY  JERVIS. 

Middlesex,  to  wit :  An  Inquisition  indented  and  taken 
for  our  sovereign  lady  the  Queen  at  the  house  of  John  Denn 
known  by  the  sign  of  the  lamb  situate  in  Street 

in  the  parish  of  in  the  County  of  Middlesex 

on  the  first  day  of  January,  in  the  twenty-seventh  year  of 
the  reign  of  our  sovereign  lady  Victoria  before  J.  W.  gen- 
tleman one  of  the  coroners  of  our  said  lady  the  Queen  for 
the  said  county  on  view  of  the  body  of  Richard  Fenn  then 
and  there  lying  dead  upon  the  oath  (or  oath  and  affirma- 
tion) of  C.  D.,  E.  F.,  G.  H.,  etc.,  (naming  the  jurors  sworn) 
good  and  lawful  men  of  the  said  county,  duly  chosen,  who 
being  then  and  there  duly  sworn  and  charged  to  inquire 
for  our  said  lady  the  Queen  when  how  and  by  what  means 
the  said  Richard  Fenn  came  to  his  death  do  upon  their  oaths 
say. 

Here  follows  the  verdict. 

In  witness  whereof  as  well  the  said  Coroner  as  the 
jurors  aforesaid  have  hereunto  set  and  subscribed  their 
hands  and  seals  the  day  and  year  first  above  written. 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORITIES. 

(References  are  to  pages.) 

Pages 

Abbreviatio  Originaliam,  Vol.  i    15 

Albany  Law  Journal,  Vol  14 225 

Albus,  Liber  32 

American  and  English  Encyclopedia  of  Law,  Vol.  29,  page  1001 192 

American  Law  Register,  Vol.  6  (O.  S.)   3,  4 

American  Law  Register,  Vol.  u   3,  4,  225 

Archeological  Journal,  Vol.  46  n 

Bacon's  Abridgment,  Vol.  2 7,  18,  21,  22,  24,  27,  31,  32,  33,  42,  45 

64,  71,  74,  83,  85,  89 

Bacon's  Abridgment  Title  Outlawry  72 

Bacon  on  Government 7,  8,  17,  18,  42 

Bigelow  on  Procedure   14 

Birch  Cartularium  Saxonicum,  Vol.  2 8 

Blackstone's  Commentaries,  Vol.  I   7,  8,  17,  20,  21,  33,  44,  46,  47 

49,  50,  Si,  52,    54,    58,    67,  68 

85,  89,  92,  TOO,  124,  139,  170,  231 

Blackstone's  Commentaries,  Vol.  4 58,  63,  84,  89,  170 

Bouvier's  Law  Dictionary,  Vol.  2 191 

Bracton  Note  Book,  Vols.  2  and  3  17,  56 

Bracton  Retorn  de  Briefs 57,  71 

Bracton's  Treatise 3,  i?,  29,  33,  55,  57,  58,  60,  66,  67,  68,  69,  85,  86 

93,  94,  95,  "6,  122,  123,  169 

Bracton's  Treatise  Sir  Travis  Twiss's  Introduction 37,  85 

Britton 15,  17,  18,  20,  23,  33,  44,  45,  46,  55,  56,  57,  59,  61,  65,  66,  67 

68,  69,  70,  71,  73,  74,  82,  83,  84,  85,  86,  87,  89,  91,  92,  93,  94 

95,  96,  98,  99,  ioo,  101,  102,  107,  113,  122,  123,  135,  136,  213 
223,  240 

Brooks'  Abridgment  Title  Appeal 17,  64,  70,  82,  83,  131 

"      Conspiracy    91 

"      Coroner. .  .17,  42,  61,  62,  63,  131,  133,  136,  137 

"      Indictment  65,  66,  131 

"      Officer   46,  139 

"      Process    71 

"                  "             "      Traverse 133,  134,  135 

Brooks'  Abridgment  Ttile  Ultagarius 72 

Buller's  Nisi  Prius  117 

Burns'  Justices,  Vol.  I   76 

"  "    2  31,32,61,84,93,109,135 

Century  Dictionary,  Vol.  8,  p.  6761 191 

Chambers  on  Local  Government 33 

Chitty's  Criminal  Law  123,  125,  132 

Close  Rolls,  Vol.  i  and  Vol.  2 33,  45,  52 

Code  d'  Instruction  Criminell 3 

(255) 


256  INDEX  OF  AUTHORITIES 

Pages 

Coke's  Book  of  Entries 127,  135 

Coke's  Institutes,  Vol.  2 7,  8,  17,  18,  20,  21,  24,  25,  26,  32,  34,  42 

44  46,  47,  48,  49,  50,  51,  52,  54,  55,  56,  64 
65,  66,  69,  70,  87,  98,  124,  133,  135 

Cokes'  Institutes,  Yol.  3.... 27,  28,  42,  60,  63,  87,  99,  115,  133,  134 

Coke's  Institutes,  Vol.  4 7,  20,  21,  28,  33,  34,  46,  47,  49,  54 

64,  65,  66,  84,  139 

Coke  Upon  Littleton 31,  71,  72 

Coke's  Pleas  of  the  Crown 21,  74,  76,  133,  137 

Comyns'  Digest  Title  Attaint 103 

Comyns'  Digest  Title  Officer 7,  8,  20,  21,  24,  45,  46,  51,  54,  62,  66 

67,  68,  69,  84,  88,  139,  142,  231 

Cooper  Records,  Vol.  I   , 45 

Crabbe's  History  of  the  Law  of  England 7,  9 

Crompton's  Justices   1 84,  86,  97,  98,  109 

Cust,    Liber    32 

Dalton  on  Sheriffs  17 

Devon  Abb.  Placit 33 

Doctor  and  Student    71 

Dugdale's  Monasticon  Anglicae,  Vol.  4 8 

Dugdale's  Monasticon  Anglicae,  Vol.  6 17,  56 

East's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  Vol.  i 42,  58,  62,  89,  91,  92,  no,  132,  134 

214 

Finch  Law   17,  56,  68,  131 

Encyclopedia  of  Evidence,  Vol.  3,  p.  574 137 

English  Historical  Review,  Vol.  8 10,  12 

Eyton's  Shropskire,  Vol.  4  46 

Finch  Law  17,  56,  68,  131 

Fitzherbert's  Abridgment 28,  42,  57,  60,  61,  63,  64,  68,  69,  70,  75,  84 

87,  89,  93,  97,  126,  131,  133,  135,  136,  137 
223 

Fitzherbert's  Natura  Brevium 20,  33,  44,  45,  46,  47,  48,  49,  50,  ST,  52 

53,  88,  143,  144 

Fleta 17,  18,  29,  33,  40,  42,  44,  54,  55,  57,  58,  61,  63,  64,  66,  67 

68,  89,  91,  92,  93,  94,  95,  96,  103,  116,  123,  131,  214,  240 

Foedera,  Rymer,  Vol.   1 12 

Forsythe  Trial  by  Jury 70 

Fortescue  de  Laudibus 99,  104,  140 

Foss's  Judges    10 

Foster's  Criminal  Law  132 

Genesis,  The  Book  of   3 

Geoffrey  de  Mandeville  (Round) 1 1,  12 

Gilbert  on   Evidence 115 

Gilbert's  Historical  View  of  the  Exchequer 21,  54,  55,  59,  70,  82 

Gloucester  Pleas  19,  33,  49,  56,  105,  122 

Gross,  Charles,  Introduction  to    Select    Coroner's    Rolls,    Selden 

Society  Series,  Vol.  9 5,  7,  9,  10,  n,  12,  13,  14,  15,  16,  17,  18 

32,  33  34,  37,  46,  52,  82,  84,  104 

Gross,  Charles,  Article  By,  7  Political  Science  Quarterly,  656. .  4,  7,  9 

82,  98 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORITIES  257 

Pages 
Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  Vol.  I 42,  60,  61,  66,  71,  72,  75,  93,    95 

96,   124,   127,  129,   131,  132,  133 

134.  135,  137 
Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  Vol.  2 17,  21,  22,  23,  24,  25,  26,  27,    28 

29,  3i,  32,  33,  34,  35,  36,  37,  42 

46,  47,  48,  52,  53,  54,  55,  56,  57 

58,  60,  61,  62,  63,  64,  65,  66,  68 

69,  70,  72,  73,  74,  75,  76,  82,  84 

85,  86,  90,  92,  93,  95,  96,  98,  99 

101,  107,  108,  109,  no,  123,  124 

125,  126,  129,  131,  133,  135,  142 
143,  223,  240 

Hale's  Summary 17,  28,  54,  57,  61,  62,  64,  65,  66,  68,  69,  70,  75,  82 

83,  89,  124,  133,  135,  136,  139 

Hansard,  Vol.  230  33 

Hawkins'  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  Vol.  i 57,  62,  89,  170 

Hawkins'  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  Vol.  2 17,  18,  20,  24,  25,  26,  27,  28 

34,  42,  44,  46,  47,  48,  49,  50 

5i,  53,  57,  60,  61,  62,  63,  64 

65,  66,  68,  69,  70,  73,  75,  76 

82,  83,  85,  86,  87,  89,  93,  104 

126,   127,   129,    131,    133,  136 
137,  170,  224 

Hovenden,  Vol.  3  10 

Hubert's  Manuel  de  Lois  3 

Irish  Law  Times,  Vol.  19 23,   24 

Jervis  on  Coroners II,  18,  31,  32,  33,  34,  35,  36,  42,  45,  47,  48,  60 

61,  70,  71,  72,  73,  83,  84,  85,  92,  98,  100,  101,  102 

103,  108,  no,  112,  114,  116,  121,  123,  125,  126 
127,  132,  134,  135,  139,  142,  177,  178,  214 

Judicial  Review,  Article  by  R.  W.  Renton,  Vol.  5 4 

Justices  of  the  Peace  (English),  Vol.  4 36,  99,  122,  127 

Lamb,  Eiren   83,  85 

Law  Magazine  and  Review,  Vol.  12  65 

Law  Times,  Vol.  78  67 

Legis  Anglo  Saxonicae   (Wilkins) u,  13,  14 

Liber  Albus   32 

Liber   Cust   32 

Lilly's    Entries    140 

Lofties  London  32 

Maine's  Ancient  Law  4 

Maitland's  Article  English  Historical  Review,  Vol.  8 10,  12 

Maitland's  Gloucester  Pleas 1 9,  33,  49,  56,  105,  122 

Maitland's  Manor  Pleas : 14 

Mandeville  Geoffrey  de   (Round)    11,    12 

Memorials  of  Ripon,  Vol.  I  34 

Mirror,  Book  I. . . .  7,  8,  9,  34,  54,  55,  57,  59,  61,  66,  67,  68,  70,  73,  83 

85,  86,  91,  92,  93,  94,  95,  96,  98,  99,  101 

Monasticon  Anglicae  (Dugdale),  Vol.  4 8,  n 


258  INDEX  OF  AUTHORITIES 

Pages 

Northumberland  Rolls 33.  34-  46,  58,    61 

Palgrave's   Commonwealth    122 

Peake  on  Evidence  117,  212 

Pennsylvania    Marriages    146 

Phillips  and  Arnold  on  Evidence 115,  117,  212 

Pipe  Roll  of  Henry  I  11 

Placita  de  Quo  Warranto   15,    33 

Pleas  of  Gloucester 19,  33,  49,  56,  105,  122 

Poltical  Science  Quarterly  Article  by  Charles  Gross,  Vol.  7 . .  4,7,9,    82 

98 

Pollock's   Oxford   Lectures 14,     16 

Pollock  and  Maitland's  History  of  the  English  Law 12 

Pulling's  Laws  of  London 32 

Rastell's   Entries    71,     73 

Register 20,  45,  47,  48,  49,  50,  51.  52,  53,  82 

Reiley's  Memorials 32 

Renton,  R.  W.,  Article  by,  5  Judicial  Review,  167 4 

Report  of  the  Judges,  3  Binney,  599,  etc.   (1808) 5,  158,  162,  169 

187,  203,  223 

Ripon,  Memorials  of,  Vol.  I   34 

Robert's  Digest  5 

Rogers'  Documents    101 

Rolles  Gascons  (Ed  Michel) 49 

Rolle's  Abridgment,  Vol.  2 28,  62,  71,  72,  88,  129,  170 

Rotuli  Claus,  Vol.  I  and  Vol.  2 33,  45,    52 

Rotuli  Curiae  Regis,  Vol.  I  9,    56 

Rotuli  Hundredas,  Vol.  I    33,    34 

Rotuli  Hundredas,  Vol.  2  34 

Rotuli  Parliament,  Vol.   i    '. 45,    87 

Rotuli  Parliament,  Vol.  2   47,    49 

Rotuli  Parliament,  Vols.  3  &  4  22 

Rotuli  Willelmy   Skillett    34 

Round's  Geoffrey  de  Mandeville   n,    12 

Rymer's   Foedera,  Vol.   i 12 

Selden's   Charters    7,    33 

Selden's  Pleas  16,  19,     56 

Selden  Society  Series,  Vol.  2  35 

Selden  Society  Series,  Vol.  4 17,  18,  33,    56 

Selden  Society  Series,  Vol.  6  33 

Selden  Society    Series    Vol.    9     (Select 

Coroner's  Rolls) 3,  5,  7,  9,  10,  n,  12,  13,  14,     15 

16,  17,  18,  32,  33,  34,  37,  45,  46 
52,  56,  74,  82,  85,  95,  96,  98,  ioi 
102,  104,  106 

Selden   Society  Series,  Vol.  9    (Select    Coroner's    Rolls),    Intro- 
duction by  Charles  Gross 5,  7,  9,  10,  n,  12,  13,  14,  15,  16,     17 

18,  32,  33,  34,  37,  46,  82,  84,  104 
Select  Coroner's  Rolls:     See  Selden  Society  Series,  Vol.  9. 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORITIES  259 

Pages 

Staundeford's  Pleas  of  the  Crotrn 7,  17,  18,  20,  27,  28,  32,  34,  42,  44 

45,  46,  47,  48,  49,  50,  51,  52,  53,  54 

55,  56,  57,  58,  61,  62,  63,  64,  65,  67 

68,  69,  70,  73,  74,  75,  82,  83,  84,  86 

87,  89,  93,  95,  96,  97,  124,  126,  131 

133,   134,   135,  136,   137,   139,  142, 
143,  223 

Stephens'  Criminal  Law  7,  37 

Stephens'  Digest  of  Criminal  Procedure 63,  67,  99,  102,  121 

Stubbs'  Constitutional  History 7,  14,  15 

Tremain's  Pleas  of  the  Crown 124 

Umfreville's  Lex  Coronatoris 3,  13,  14,  18,  25,  29,  54,  56,  60,  64 

74,  86,  87,  88,  90,  92,  93,  94,  98,  101 

107,  108,  116,  123,  125,  136,  139,  140 

144,  177 

Viner's  Abridgment,  Vol.  6 7,  8,  17,  21,  42,  55,  59,  63,  66,  76,  93 

no,  135 

Wallingford's  Historical  Mss 101 

Watson's   Sheriff    71 

Wellington's  The  King's  Coroner 9,  208 

Western  Law  Journal,  Vol.  2  1 16 

Wilkins'  Legis  Anglo  Saxonicae  n,  13,  14 

Wood's    Institutes    70 

Words  and  Phrases,  Vol.  8  192 


TABLE  OF  ENGLISH  STATUTES. 

(References  are  to  Pages.) 

Pages 

Charter  of  Liberties  of  Henry  III,  c.  36 86 

Magna  Charta   13,   16,  18 

Statute  of  Exeter   84 

Statute  of  Malbridge,  i  Statutes  of  the 

Realm,  25  (1267) 98,  113,  114  115,  116,  117,  118 

119,  120,  124 

Statute  of  Merton,  i  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  I  (1235) 46 

Statute  of  Oxford 50 

Westminster  I,  c.  10,  I  Statutes  of  the 

Realm,   26    (1275) 37,  39,  43,  44,  46,  48,  50,  82,  87 

Westminster  I,  c.  26,  i  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  26  (1275) 50 

3  Edward  I   75 

4  Edward  I,  i  Statutes  of  the  Realm, 

40  (1275)    15,  18,  28,  32,  36,  37,  42,  50,    54 

55,  57,  58,  64,  65,  66,  67,  69,  85 
86,  87,  89,  90,  92,  93,  94  95,  96 
100,  107,  121,  123,  126,  127,  128 
157,  169,  183,  186,  187,  208,  213 

12  Edward  I,  509,  i  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  59  (1284) 74 

14  Edward  II,  ch.  I  (de  Militibus),  i  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  229 

(1320) 47 

14  Edward  III,  Statute  I,  c.  8,  I  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  283 

(1340)  46,  47 

28  Edward  III,  c.  6,  I  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  346 

(1354)    31,  33,  44,  45,  48,  131 

14  Edward  III,  Statute  2 47 

34  Edward  III,  c.  13,  i  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  368  (1360) 114,  131 

13  Richard  II,  c.  3,  2  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  62  (1389) 23 

15  Richard  II,  2  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  78  (1391) 22,    28 

2  Henry  IV,  c.  9,  2  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  123  (1400) 99 

36  Henry  VI,  c.  16  1 14 

i  Richard  III,  c.  3,  2  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  478  (1483) 42,  43,    96 

I  Henry  VII,  c.  7 87 

3  Henry  VII,  c.  I,  2  Statutes  of  the 

Realm,    511     (1487) SO,  60,  75,  76,  82,  87,  89,  90,    94 

95,  124,  127,   157,  186,  194,  200 

2OI,   202,   2O3,   2O5,   221 

i  Henry  VIII,  c.  7,  3  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  4  (1509).. 75,  76,  87,  114 

22  Henry  VIII,  c.  7,  3  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  324  (1530) 74 

28  Henry  VIII,  c.  15,  3  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  671  (1536)  ...  27,  31,  125 

32  Henry  VIII,  c.  30,  3  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  786  (1540) 142 

33  Henry  VIII,  c.  12,  3  Statutes  of  the  Realm, 

845  (i54i)   23,  26,  27,  31,  124,  125,  142 

(260) 


TABLE  OF  ENGLISH  STATUTES  261 

Pages 
35  Henry  VIII,  3  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  893  (1542) 31 

1  &  2  Phillip  and  Mary,  c.  13,  4  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  Part  2, 

250  (i554)  75,  9i,  109,  no,  124,  137,  165,  223 

2  &  3  Phillip  and  Mary,  c.  10,  4  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  Part  2, 

286   (I5SS)    137 

2  &  3  Edward  VI,  c.  24,  §  2,  4  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  69  (1548)  .  .36,  162 

21  James  I,  c.  25,  4  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  1233  (1623) 74 

25  George  II,  c.  20,  20  Statutes  at  Large  (Eng.),  235 52,    75 

7  George  IV,  c.  64,  §  4 117 

6  &  7  Victoria,  c.  83,  §  2  .  .  .   JQI 


TABLE  OF  ACTS  OF  ASSEMBLY. 

(References  are  to  Pages.) 

Pages 

Frame  of  Government  of  1682,  Poore's  Federal  and  State  Consti- 
tutions,   1522    146 

Frame  of  Government  of  1683,  Duke  of  York's  Book  of  Laws,  159.  154 
Charter  of   Privileges,  Poore's  Federal    and    State    Constitutions, 

1536    147,  154 

Constitution  of   1776,    Poore's    Federal  and    State    Constitutions, 

1540    148,  154 

Constitution  of   1790,   Poore's    Federal   and    State    Constitutions, 

1548    148,  154 

Constitution  of   1838,   Poore's    Federal    and    State    Constitutions, 

1557    149,  154 

Constitution  of  1874,  Art.  V  171,  247 

Constitution  of  1874,  Art.  XIV,  I  Purdon's  Digest,  202 149,  154,  168 

Constitution  of  1874,  Art.  XVI,  I  Purdon's  Digest,  203  174 

Constitution  of  1874,  §2  Schedule,  i  Purdon's  Digest,  218 149 

Amendment  of  1909,  Art.  XIV,  5  Purdon's  Digest,  5197 149,  154 

1682,  Laws  of  the  Province,  148  235 

i  March,  1683,  Duke  of  York's  Book  of  Laws,  48  235 

15  March,  1693,  Duke  of  York's  Book  of  Laws,  235  235 

27  November,  1700,  2  Statutes  at  Large,  138 150,  235 

12  January,  1705-6,  2  Statutes  at  Large,  218 157 

12  January,  1705-6,  2  Statutes  at  Large,  272  146,  147,  150,  231 

28  February,  1710-11,  2  Statutes  at  Large,  314 156 

28  February,  1710-11,  2  Statutes  at  Large,  348 235 

28  February,  1710-11,  2  Statutes  at  Large,  355 150 

28  May,  1715,  3  Statutes  at  Large,  39 150 

28  May,  1715,  3  Statutes  at  Large,  111-2 235 

24  August,  1717,  3  Statutes  at  Large,  138 147 

22  May,  1722,  3  Statutes  at  Large,  307  231 

30  March,   1722-3,  3   Statutes  at  Large,  372-8 235 

20  March,  1724-5,  4  Statutes  at  Large,  19  147 

27  January,  1749-50,  5  Statutes  at  Large,  gj  147 

ii  March,  1752,  5  Statutes  at  Large,  138   147 

ii  March,  1752,  5  Statutes  at  Large,  154-7 157 

22  August,  1752,  5  Statutes  at  Large,  166 235,  236 

3  September,  1776,  9  Statutes  at  Large,  17 147 

20  December,  1776,  9  Statutes  at  Large,  158 157 

26  March,  1778,  9  Statutes  at  Large,  229 236 

16  March,  1779,  9  Statutes  at  Large,  320 165,  236 

27  November,  1779,  10  Statutes  at  Large,  39   237 

28  February,  1780,  10  Statutes  at  Large,  57  156 

i  March,  1780,  10  Statutes  at  Large,  78 156 

(262) 


TABLE  OF  ACTS  OF  ASSEMBLY  263 

Pages 

28  March,  1781,  10  Statutes  at  Large,  278 147 

3  April,  1791,  14  Statutes  at  Large,  no 156 

28  March,  1803,  P.  L.  497,  4  Sm.  L.  48 151,  152,  231 

28  March,  1814,  P.  L.  233  234,  243,  244 

29  March,  1819,  7  Sm.  L.  219 161 

22  February,  1821,  7  Sm.  L.  377  243 

31  January,  1833,  P.  L.  21  243 

14  April,  1834,  P.  L.  364 232 

14  April,  1834,  P.  L.  366  243 

15  April,  1834,  P-  L.  547  150,  151,  152,  237 

16  June,  1836,  P.  L.  724 233 

27  May,  1841,  P.  L.  404 167,  239 

5  April,  1842,  P.  L.  235  155 

16  April,  1845,  P.  L.  539 192,  196,  247,  248 

24  March,  1846,  P.  L.  165  155 

8  February,  1848,  P.  L.  29  242 

22  April,  1850,  P.  L.  553  233 

3  April,  1852,  P.  L.  246  171 

15  April,  1853,  P.,  L.  453  242 

8  March,  1855,  P.  L.  64 196 

2  April,  1856,  P.  L.  219 242,  243 

12  April,  1856,  P.  L.  324  247 

19  April,  1856,  P.  L.  470  172 

14  March,  1857,  P.  L.  88  242 

16  May,  1857,  P.  L.  536 177 

14  March,  1860,  P.  L.  167  242 

26  March,  1860,  P.  L.  278 243 

3  April,  1860,  P.  L.  650  153 

i  May,  1860,  P.  L.  437  243 

1  May,  1861,  P.  L.  560 172 

ir  April,  1862,  P.  L.  437 154 

14  February,  1863,  P.  L.  30 172 

27  February,  1863,  P.  L.  82  242 

17  March,  1864,  P.  L.  21  ...  172 

18  March,  1864,  P.  L.  60 243 

30  January,  1866,  P.  L.  6  ...  172 

30  March,  1866,  P.  L.  391  192,  195,  196,  227 

11  April,  1866,  P  L.  603  243 

9  March,  1867,  P.  L.  382 236 

12  March,  1867,  P.  L.  404  196 

22  March,  1867,  P.  L.  532  1/2,  192,  196,  248 

2  April,  1867,  P.  L.  676  243 

2  April,  1867,  P.  L.  677 242 

21  March,  1868,  P.  L.  412  ...  236 

26  March,  1868,  P.  L.  495  ...  236 

i  April,  1868,  P.  L.  544  ...  236 

13  April,  1868,  P.  L.  948 . .  153 

5  February,  1869,  P.  L.  118  .  .243 

18  March,  1869,  P.  L.  404. ...          192,  195  248 

17  April,  1869,  P.  L.  1119 236 


264  TABLE  OF  ACTS  OF  ASSEMBLY 

Pages 
xo  February,  1870,  P.  L.  123 243 

23  February,  1870,  P.  L.  226  236 

31  March,  1870,  P.  L.  695  236 

18  February,  1871,  P.  L.  106 236 

24  March,  1871,  P.  L.  450 195 

28  June,  1871,  P.  L.  1380  172,  243 

6  March,  1872,  P.  L.  209  248 

9  March,  1872,  P.  L.  294 195 

11  May,  1872,  P.  L.  755  243 

28  February,  1873,  P.  L.  37 243 

21  March,  1873,  P.  L.  348  172 

10  April,  1873,  P.  L.  708  242 

15  May,  1874,  P.  L.  205  155 

31  March,  1876,  P.  L.  13 248 

12  June,  1878,  P.  L.  188 244 

11  June,  1879,  P.  L.  147 243 

8  June,  1881,  P.  L.  81  154 

9  May,  1889,  P-  L.  162  172,  245,  247 

2  June,  1891,  P.  L.  202  226,  227 

15  May,  1893,  P.  L.  72 227,  228 

6  June,  1893,  P-  L.  330 174,  245,  247 

12  June,  1893,  P.  L.  457 229 

2  July,  1895,  P.  L.  424  248 

30  March,  1897,  P.  L.  8 164,  165,  188,  239,  246,  247 

1 1  June,  1897,  P.  L.  147  243 

21  March,  1899,  P.  L.  12 247,  248 

18  April,  1899,  P.  L.  52  229,  230 

10  July,  1901,  P.  L.  641   248 

I  May,  1905,  P.  L.  330 164,  196 

16  April,  1907,  P.  L.  92 157,  158,  164,  187,  192,  195,  197,  203,  230,  249 

I  June,  1911,  P.  L.  556 247 

8  June,  1911,  P.  L.  717  229 

9  June,  1911,  P.  L.  756  227 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 

(References  are  to  Pages.) 

Pages 

Aldenham  ats.  Rex,  2  Levinz,  152,  s.  c.  sub  nom  Anonymous,  i  Ven- 
tris,  278,  sub  nom  Rex  v.  Alderman  Freeman,  419,  3  Keble,  564, 

566,  604  (1678)    103,  108,  114,  125,  129,  133,  134,  135,  178 

Allegheny  County  v.  McClung,  53  Pa.  St.  482  (1866)..  158,  162,  187,  205 
Allegheny  County  v.  Shaw,  34  Pa.  St.  301,  s.  c.  7  P.  L. 
J.  217,  12  W.  N.  C.  312,  14  Lane.  Bar  101,  39  Leg. 

Int.  459  (1859) 159,  191,  209,  241 

Allegheny  County  v.  Watts,  3  Pa.  St.  462  (1846) .  .158,  209,  241,  242,  244 

Allen  ats.  Commonwealth,  30  Pa.  St.  49  (1858) 153 

Ameridith's  Case,  9  Coke's  Reports,  29  b  (1598) 31,  136 

Anonymous,  3  Atkins,  184  (1744)    44,  51,  52,    53 

Anonymous,  Comberback,  70   (1683) 126,  128 

Anonymous,  Comberback,  435    ( 1698) 142,  143 

Anonymous,  Dalliston,  15  pi.  7  ( 1553) 46 

Anonymous,  Dalliston,  32  pi.  19   (1561) 95 

Anonymous,  Dyer,  238,  pi.  36  (1565) 95,  134,  135,  136 

Anonymous,  Godbolt,  105,  pi.  123  ( 1586) 50 

Anonymous,  Jenkins,  202,  pi.  24  (1546) 94 

Anonymous,  Jenkins,  177,  pi.  54  ( 1489) 95 

Anonymous,  2  Lord  Raymond,  1305  (1710) 97,  124,  126,  127 

Anonymous,  7  Modern,   10   (1702) 61,  183 

Anonymous,  i  Ventris,  278,  sub  nom   Rex   v.   Alden- 
ham, 2  Levinz,  152,  Freeman,  419,  3  Keble,  564, 

566,  604   (1678) 103,  108,  114,  129 

132,  133,  134,  135 
178 

Anonymous,  12  Modern,   112   (1697) 126,  222 

Anonymous,  Moore,  29,  pi.  95  (1560) 95 

Anonymous,  Moore,   819-2    28 

Anonymous,  Noy,   113    (1605)    71,    73 

Anonymous,  Pettys  Mss.  Fragment  from  3  Edward  III 135 

Anonymous,  No.  117,  Dec.  Sessions,  1883,  Q.  S.  Fayette  Co 199,  247 

Anonymous,  I  Strange,  533  (1723) 62,  96,  97,  129 

Anonymous,  I  Ventris,  239  (1673) 132,  133.  134 

Anonymous,  I  Ventris,  352  (1680) .  .62,  89,  90,  126,  128,  129,  133,  134,  170 

Anonymous,  2  Ventris,  216  ( 1620) 141 

Anonymous,  Umfreville's  Lex  Coronatoris,  233  (1553) 141*  239 

Appleman's  Case,  7  Jurist,  201  (1909) 190 

Approval  of  Coroner's  Inquest,  7  Dist.  566,  s.  c.  20  P.  C.  C.  R.  660, 
2  Docket,  65  (1896) ...  .168,  169,  183,  189,  190,  198,  199,  202,  206,  226 
227,  228 

Arnold's  Case,  4  Pa.  J.  L.  R.  49  (1905) 158,  160,  161,  168,  183,  186 

199,  203,  205,  206 

(265) 


266  TABLE  OF  CASES 

Pages 

Assize,  12,  p.  19-29  136,  137 

Assize,  17,  P-  S   17,  7<>,  83 

Assize,  22,  p.  76    135 

Assize,  22,  p.  93    18 

Assize,  22,  p.  94 91,  93,  123,  127,  221 

Assize,  22,  pp.  97-98   17,  18,  68,  70 

Assize,  23,  p.  7  18,  47 

Assize,  27,  p.  47 70,  72,  86,  139,  231 

Assize,  27,  p.  55   64,  65,  66,  89,  170 

Assize,  31,  p.  20    142,  143 

Assize,  37,  p.  13    131 

Assize,  37,  p.   13    131 

Atkinson  ats.  Rex,  12  Modern,  496  (1702) 125,  129,  130 

Aurlstone's  Case,  Fitzherbert's  Natura  Brevium,  144 129,  250 

Bain  ats.  Wells,  75  Pa.  St.  39  (1874) 149 

Baker  ats.  Floyd,  12  Coke's  Reports,  23  (1608) 119 

Barber  ats.  Clerk,  2  Law  Times,  N.  S.  61 244 

Batton  ats.  Fayette  Co.  108  Pa.  St.  594  (1885) 180,  188,  190,  191,  197 

199,  234,  238,  247 
Beaver  County  ats.  Watson,  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  495,  s.  c.  27,  W.  N.  C. 

469  (1891) 158,  160,  180,  189,  198,  199,  202,  206,  239 

Bender's  Case,  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  664  (1890) 159,  168,  181,  182,  189,  198 

Berkley's  Case,  2  Siderfen,  90-101-144  (1658) 21,  62,  96,  97,  100 

108,    in,   127,  133 

Berkshire's  Case,  Palmer,  252  (1623)    127 

Bleiler  v.  Muldoon,  16  Pa.  Superior  Court,  553  (1901; 248 

Bond  ats.  Rex,  i  Strange,  22  (1717) 61,  62,  96,  97,  129 

Borough  &  Holcroft's  Case,  2  Leonard,  160  (1579) 24,  25,  47,  48 

Brooker  ats.  Gregory,  Croke's  Elizabeth,  586  (1598) 141,  232 

Brownfield  v.  Commonwealth,  13  S.  &  R.  265  (1825) 151 

Brunswick  ats.  Rex,  2  Keble,  19,  s.  c.  sub  nom  Brunswick's  Case, 

i  Levinz,  180  (1666)    115,  117,  137 

Buck's  County  Coroner's  Inquisition,  17  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  553  (1894)...  244 

Buckhurst's  Case,  i  Keble,  278  (1662) 61,  63,  75,  76,  124,  165 

Buckler's  Case,  Dyer,  69  (1552) 126 

Bunney  ats.  Rex,  i  Salkeld,  190,  2  Saunders,  291, 

Carthew,  72  61,  89,  93,  97,  107,  108 

114,  125,  126,  128,  129 

135,  137 

Burleigh  ats.  Leigh,  Owen,  122  (1610) 28,  29,  116 

Burnett  v.  Lackawanna  County,  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  95,  s.  c.  i  Lack. 

Jur.  410  (1890) 158,  163,  183,  195,  209,  214,  235,  239,  243 

Burns'  Case,  5  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  549  (1888) ..  .122,  158,  167,  181,  183,  184,  188 

190,  193,  198,  200,  201,  204,  221 
238 

Cambria  County  ats.  Miller,  29   Pa.   Su- 
perior Ct.  166  (1905)   159,  181,  182,  190,  191,  193,  238 

Campbell  ats.  Commonwealth,  8  S.  &  R.  417  (1822) 153 

Candith  ats.  Sairbl,  Yelverton  214  ( 1612) 141,  232 

Carmack  ats.  Commonwealth,  5  Binney,  188  (1812) 153 


TABLE  OF  CASES  267 

Pages 
Carson  v.  Forrest  County,  14  Dist.  818,  s.  c.  9  Del.  Co.  49,  3  Pa. 

J.  L.  R.  262  (1905) 244 

Causey  ats.  Rex,  Mss.  2  Bacon's  Abridgment,  429  (1717) 62 

Chambers  ats.  Troutman,  9  Dist.  533  (1900)..  163,  172,  186,  239,  240,  245 
Chester  Counts  ats.  Hopkins,  i    Chester   Co. 

481   (1878)    183,  189,  191,  199,  210,  211 

Chester  County  ats.  McFadgen,  10  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  124,  s.  c.  7  Mont. 

149  (1891) 5,  157,  158,  159,  160,  180,  183^  184,  185,  187,  188 

189,  190,  191,  197,  198,  204,  207,  208,  209,  237 
238,  239 
Chester  County  ats.  Rambo,  i  Chester 

Co.  414-416   ( 1878)    183,  189,  191,  199,  243,  244,  247 

Christman  ats.  Commonwealth,  17  S.  &  R.  381  (1828) 153 

Churston  ats.  Thomas,  2  Best  &  Smith,  475,  s.  c.  8  Jurist  (N.  S.), 

795    (1862)    119 

City  of  London's  Case,  8  Coke's  Reports,  I2ia  (1610) 31,  70,    72 

Clark  ats.  Taylor,  3  Levinz,  399  (1695) 142,  143 

Clecott  v.  Dennys,  Croke's  Elizabeth,  67  (1588) 84,  143 

Clerk  v.  Barber,  2  Law  Times,  N.  S.  61  244 

Clerk  ats.  Regina,  i  Salkeld,  377,  s.  c.  Holt, 

167,  pi.  3  (1702) 58,  61,  62  75,  93,  96,  97,  109 

125,  126,  127,  130,  135 

Cobat's  Case,  Mss.  i  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  161,  note 99 

Cochrane's  Case,  12  Dist.  477,  s.  c.  27  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  282,  2  Pa.  J.  L. 

R.  27  (1903) 159,  167,  168,  184,  188,  189,  190,  191,  198 

199,  201,  202,  206,  227 

Coleridge  ats.  Cox,  i  B.  &  C.  37,  2  D.  &  R.  86  (1822) in,  113.  214 

Colmer  ats.  Regina,  9  Cox  C.  C.  506  (1864) n6 

Commonwealth  v.  Allen,  30  Pa.  St.  49  (1858) 153 

Commonwealth  ats.  Brownfield,  13  S.  &  R.  265   (1825; 151 

Commonwealth  ats.  Campbell,  8  S.  &  R.  417  (1822) 153 

Commonwealth  ats.  Carmack,  5  Binney,  188  (1812) 153 

Commonwealth  ats.  Christman,  17  S.  &  R.  381   (1828) 153 

Commonwealth  v.  Center,  21  Pa.  St.  266  (1853) •  •  •  153 

Commonwealth  v.  Dauphin  County  Commissioners,  23  Pa.  C.  C.  R. 
646,  s.  c.  sub  nom  Commonwealth  v.  Smith,  9  Dist.  350,  3  Dau- 
phin, 159,  7  North,  255,  6  Lack.  L.  N.  151  (1901) 174 

Commonwealth  ats.  Dunn,  14  S.  &  R.  431   (1826)...  .  152 

Commonwealth  v.  Grether,  204  Pa.  St.  203  (1902)..  ....  210 

Commonwealth  v.  Grier,  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  444  (1891  > 172,  174 

Commonwealth  v.  Harmon,  4  Pa.  St.  269  (1846) 188,  191,  104,  241 

Commonwealth  v.  Higgins.  3  Kulp,  269  (1889) ...  .157,  158,  161,  186,  187 

190,  213,  238,  241 

Commonwealth  v.  Lelar,  5  Clark,  167   (1852).. 
Commonwealth  ats.  Lynch,  16  S.  &  R.  368  (1827;.. 
Commonwealth  v.  McClay,  8  Watts,  153  (1839) 
Commonwealth  a*.  McMichen,  58  Pa.  St.  213  (1868;.. 
Commonwealth  v.  Norris,  13  Kulp's  Luz.  Leg.  Reg.  I,  s.  c.  15  Dist. 

821    (1905)     227'  2 

Commonwealth  v.  Rainey,  4  W.  &  S.  146  (1842 . 


268  TABLE  OF  CASES 

Pages 

Commonwealth  ats.  Snyder,  3  P.  &  W.  286  (1831) 153 

Commonwealth  ats.  Sprang,  12  Pa.  St.  358  (1849) 152 

Commonwealth  v.  Springer,  13  W.  N.  C.  305  ( 1883) 153 

Commonwealth  v.  Wilson,  7  W.  &  S.  181  (1844) 153 

Commonwealth  ats.  Wolverton,  7  S.  &  R.  273   (1821) 153 

Commonwealth  v.  Young,  4  Binney,  113  (1811),  s.  c.  6  Binney,  88 

(1602)    141,  232 

Center  ats.  Commonwealth,  21  Pa.  St.  266  (1853) 153 

Cook,  In  re,  7  Q.  B.  653  (1872) 120 

Corne  v.  Pastow,  Yelverton,   15,  s.  c.  Croke's  Elizabeth,  894 

( 1602)    141,  232 

Corwallis  ats.  Hoyle,  I  Strange,  387  (1719) 144 

Coroner's  Case,  Jenkins'  Century  Cases,  90  pi.  74  (1454) 53,    84 

Coroner's  Case,   n   Phila.  387,  32  Leg.  Int.  142.  7  Leg.  Gaz.  125 

(1875) 157,  158,  160,  161,  167,  187,  199,  202 

Coroner's  Duties,  20  Dist.  502  (1911) 157,  220 

Coroner's  Inquests,  I  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  14,  s.  c.  3  Kulp,  451,  2  Del.  Co. 

446.  3  Lane.  L.  R.  70  (1885) 159,  169.  170,  183,  189,  190,  191,  197 

198,    199,    203,    204,    206,    211,  222 
240,  241 
Coroner's  Inquests,  i  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  667,  2  Del.  Co.  475,  3  Kulp,  451 

(1885)    169,  221,  241,  243,  244 

Coroner's  Inquest,  28  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  428  (1903) 167,  168,  169,  180,  183 

188,  190,  191,  193,  198 
200,  20 1,  204,  237,  240 
242 

Coroner  of  Montgomery's  Case,  Noy,  87  (1625) 89 

Coroner  ats.  Rex,  Comberback,  2  (1686) 131 

Coulson  ats.  Weston,  i  Wm.  Blackstone's  Rep.  506  (1763) 139,  231 

Cox  v.  Coleridge,  i  B.  &  C.  37,  2  D.  &  R.  86  (1822) 111,  113,  214 

Crosby's  Inquest,  19  P.  L.  J.  192,  3  Pitts.  425  (1872) 204,  221,  222 

Cross  ats.  Rex,  i  Keble,  744,  i    Siderfen,   204,    I 

Keble,  723,  Popham,  210  (1664) 94,  100,  126,  127,  129 

Dalton  ate.  Rex,  2  Strange,  911  (1722) 109,  132 

Dauphin  Co.  Commissioners  ats.  Commonwealth,  23  Pa.  C.  C.  R. 
646,  s.  c.  sub  nont  Commonwealth  v.  Smith,  9  Dist.  350,  3  Dau- 
phin, 159,  7  North,  255,  6  Lack.  L.  N.  151  (1901) 174 

Day  ats.  Luzerne  County,  23  Pa.  St.  141  (1854) 242 

Dearings'  Case,  Croke's  Elizabeth,  193,  pi.  7  (1590) 84,  125 

Dennys  ats.  Clecott,  Croke's  Elizabeth,  67  (1588) 84,  143 

Dern    ats.    Lancaster    County,    2    Grant, 

262    (1852) 5,  160,  180,  187,  188,  189,  191 

192,  193,  195,  205,  209,  225 

Dolby  ats.  Rex,  Umfreville's  Lex  Coronatoris,  144 142 

Dunn  v.  Commonwealth,  14  S.  &  R.  431   (1826) 152 

Earl  of  Berkshires'  Case,  Palmer,  252  (1623) 127 

Eckard  v.  Fayette  County,  5  Dist.  371,  s.  c.  43  Pa.  L.  J.  461 

(1806)     .- 172,  245 

Edwards  v.  Gimbel,  202,  Pa.  St.  30  (1902) 158,  213,  223,  225 


TABLE  OF  CASES  269 

Erie  Co.  ats.  Pickett,  19  W.  N.  C.  60,  s.  c.  4  Pa. 

C.  C.  R.  23  (1887) S,  36,  158,  162,  166,  167 

169,  198,  209,  211,  234 
237,  239,  241,  242,  244 
Erie  County  Coroner's  Case,  i  Dist.  244,  s.  c.  u  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  136 

(1892)  155 

Eriswell  ats.  Rex,  3  Term  Reports,  713  (1790) 113,  117 

Etherington  ats.  Toombes,  I  Levinz,  120  (1663) 34,  46 

Evans'  Inquest,  4  C.  P.  89  (1887) 228 

Fayette  County  Coroners'  Inquest,  30  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  321,  35  P.  L.  J. 

265,  9  Del.  Co.  431  (1904) 159,  189,  191,  199,  222,  224 

Fayette  County  Coroner's  Return,  24  Pa.  C. 

C.   R.  498    (1900) 158,  159,  163,  182,  184,  188 

189,   I9O,    191,   198,   206,  221 
222,    238,    240,   241 

Fayette  County  Deputy  Coroner's  Case,  20  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  641,  s.  c.  7 

Dist.  568/46  P.  L.  J.  2  (1898) 157,  163,  172,  174,  186,  240,  245 

Fayette  County  v.  Batton,  108  Pa.  St.  594  (1885)  ..180,  188,  190,  191,  197 

199,  234,  238,  247 
Fayette  County  ats.  Eckard,  5  Dist.  371,  s.  c.  43  P.  L.  J.  461 

(1896)  172,  245 

Ferrand  ats.  Garnett,  6  Barn.  &  Cress,  6n  s.  c.  6  Dowl.  &  Ry.  657 

(1826)  116,  119,  120,213 

Ferrand  ats.  Regina,  2  Barnwell  &  Alderson,  260 101,  no 

Floyd  v.  Baker,  12  Coke's  Reports,  23  ( 1608) 119 

Fogarty  v.  Schuylkill  County,  13  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  454  (1893) 172,  245 

Forrest  County  ats.  Carson,  14  Dist.  818,  s.  c.  9  Del.  Co.  49,  3  Pa. 

J.  L.  R.  262  (1905) 244 

Foxley's  Case,  5  Coke's  Reports,  no  (1601) 28,  62,  89,  135,  136 

Francis  v.  Tioga  County,  8  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  163  (1889) 247 

Frenche's  Case,  2  Leonard,  200  (1587) 70 

Fricker's  Appeal,  i  Watts,  393  (1833) 152 

Garnett  v.  Ferrand,  6  Barn  &  Cress,  6n,  s.  c.  6  Dowl  &  Ry.  657 

(1826)  116,  119,  120,  213 

Gilbert  ats.  Phila.,  14  Phila.  212,  s.  c.  37  Leg.  Int.  376  (1880) 248 

Gimbel  ats.  Edwards,  202  Pa.  St.  30  (1002) 158,  213,  223,  225 

Great  Western  ats.  Regina,  43  E.  C  L.  R.  759  (1842) 183,  184 

Gregory  v.  Brooker,  Croke's  Elizabeth,  586  (1598) 141,  232 

Grether  ats.  Commonwealth,  204  Pa.  St.  203  (1002) 210 

Greton's  Case,  Freeman,  433,  pi.  608 134 

Grier  ats.  Commonwealth,  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  444  (1891) 172,  174 

Griesley's  Case,  8  Coke's  Reports,  41  (i598) 49,  SO,  5* 

Grieve's  Case,  Mss.  I  Male's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  414,  2  Kale's 

Pleas  of  the  Crown,  59 76,  137 

Groves'  Case,  26  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  449  O90O) 172,  186,  240,  245,  249 

Grubbs'  Case,  3  Pa.  J.  L.  R.  78  (1904)  ---iSS,  169,  180,  183,  187,  202,  221 

Kale's  Case,  Allen,  51  (1648)  96 

Hamlin's  Case,  King's  Bench,  1610  25 

Hammond  v.  Howell,  I  Modern,  184  (1675) "4,  "9 

Harmon  ats.  Commonwealth,  4  Pa.  St.  269  (1846) ..  .188,  191,  194.  241 


270  TABLE  OF  CASES 

Pages 

Harrison  ats.  Rex,  I  Siderfen,  255-259  (1666) 127,  128,  129,  130 

Heathershall  ats.   Rex,  3  Modern,  80 

(1685) 97,    108,    114,    125,    128,    129,131 

135,  224 

Heaton  ats.  Rex,  2  Term  Reports,  184  (1787) 133 

Herford  ats.  Regina,  3  Ellis  &  Ellis,  115,  s.  c.  6  Jurist  (N.  S.)  750, 

20  L.  J.  Q.  B.  249  (1860) 67 

Higgins  ats.  Commonwealth,  3  Kulp,  269  (1889)..  157,  158,  161,  186,  187 

190,  213,  238,  241 

Holme's  Case,  Coke's  Entries,  353!} 109 

Hopkins  v.  Chester  County,  i  Chester  County,  481  (1878)..  183,  189,  191 

199,  210,  2ii 

Howarth's  Case,  2  Luzerne  L.  R.  119  (1873) I95 

Howell  ats.  Hammond,  I  Modern,  184  (1675) 114,  H9 

Hoyle  v.  Lord  Cornwallis,  i  Strange,  387  (1719) 144 

Humphries  ats.  Palmer,  Croke's  Elizabeth,  583,  pi.  13  (1598) 131 

Ingham  ats.  Regina,  5  Best  &  Smith,  257  (1864) 101 

Innes  ats.  Northampton  County,  26  Pa.  St.  156  (1856) 188,  191,  198 

211,237,  241 

Jack  ats.  Schafer,  14  S.  &  R.  426  (1826) 153 

Jones'  Case,  i  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  19  (1884) 180,  183,  189,  190,  191,  193 

197,  198,  199,  204,  221,  227 

Justices  of  Kent  ats.  Rex,  n  East,  228  (1809) 87,  91,  159,  189,  190 

237,  238,  250 

Killinghall  ats.  Rex,  i  Burroughs,  17  (1756) 114,  115 

King  v.  Aldenham,  3  Keble,  564,  566,    604,  s.  c.    Freeman,   419,    2 
Levinz,     152,    s.    c.    sub    nom    Anonymous,     I    Ventris,     278 

(1678)  103,  108,  114,  129,  132,  133,  134,  135,  178 

King  v.  Atkinson,  12  Modern,  496  (1702) 125,  129,  130 

King  v.  Bond,  i  Strange,  22  (1717) 61,  62,  96,  97.  129 

King  v.  Brunswick,  2  Keble,  19  s.  c.  sub  nom  Brunswick's  Case,  i 

Levinz,  180  (1666) 115,  117,  137 

King  v.  Bunney,  i  Salkeld,  190,  2  Sanders,  291, 

Carthew,  72  61,  89,  93,  97,  107,  108 

114,    125,   126,    128,  129 

135,   137 

King  v.  Causey,  Mss.  2  Bacon's  Abridgment,  429  (1717) 62 

King  v.  Coroner,  Comberback,  2  (1686) 131 

King  v.  Cross,  i  Keble,  744,  I    Siderfen,    204,    I 

Keble,  723,  Popham,  210   (1664) 94,  100,  126,  127,  129 

King  v.  Dalton,  2  Strange,  911  (1722) 109,  132 

King  v.  Dolby,  Umfreville's  Lex  Coronatoris,  144 142 

King  v.  Eriswell,  3  Term  Reports,  713  (1790) 113,  117 

King  v.  Harrison,  i  Siderfen,  255-259  (1666) 127,  128,  129,  130 

King  v.  Heathershall,  3  Modern,  80  (1685) 97,  108,  114,  125,  128 

129,  131,  135,  224 

King  v.  Heaton,  2  Term  Reports,  184  (1787) 133 

King  v.  Justices  of  Kent,  n  East,  228  (1809) 87,  91,  159,  189,  190 

237,  238,  250 


TABLE  OF  CASES  271 

Pages 

King  v.  Killinghall,  i  Burroughs,  17  (1756) ii4>  115 

King  v.  Macauley,  9  Coke's  Reports,  666  ( 1612) .'    93 

King  v.  Magrath,  2  Strange,  1242  (1746) 109,  132 

King  v.  Paine,  i  Lord  Raymond,  729,  s.  c.  i  Salkeld,  281  (1692)...  137 
King  v.  Parker,  2  Levinz,  141,  3  Keble,  489  (1675).. 61,  62,  89,  125,  126 

129,    130,    132,  133 

134,  135,  136 

King  v.  Phillips,  I  Strange,  261  (1720) 126,  129 

King  v.  Purefoy,  Maidstone  Summer  Assize,  1794 117 

King  v.  Ripley,  Skinner,  45,  pi.  16,  s.  c.  2  Jones,  198,  2 

Shower,  190  (1680)    108,  125,  128,  129 

130,  133,  134,  135 

King  v.  Roupel,  Cowper,  458  (1776) 133 

King  v.  Saunders,  i  Strange,  167  (1719) 62,  97,  129 

King  v.  Scorey,  i  Leach,  43  (1749) 75,  107,  108,  109,  116,  214 

King  v.  Solgard,  Andrews,  231,  s.  c.  2  Strange,  1097 

(1738)    61,  92,   116,  129 

King  v.  Solway,  3  Modern,  100,  pi.  61  (1686) 108,  126,  128,  129,  130 

King  v.  Stanlake,  2  Keble,  859  (1671) 128,  133 

King  v.  Storke,  2  Keble,  800  (1679) 128,  129,  133,  134 

King  v.  Stukeley,  Holt,  167,  s.  c.  12  Modern,  493  (1701) 61,  103,  108 

King  v.  Sutton,  2  Strange,  1073  (1737)    124,  129 

King  v.  Thomas,  Leigh  v.  Cave,  313  (1863) 67 

King  v.  Wakefield,  I  Strange,  69  (1718) 75,  108,  129,  130 

King  v.  Warrington,  i  Salkeld,  152  (1692)   129,  140,  143,  231,  232 

King  v.  Yaundel,  4  Term  Reports,  542  (1792) 72 

Lackawanna  County  ats.  Burnett,  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  95,  s.  c.  i  Lack. 

Jur.  410  (1890) 158,  163,  183,  195,  209,  214,  235,  239,  243 

Lambe  v.  Wiseman,  Hobart,  70 71,    72 

Lancaster  County  v.  Dern,  2  Grant,  252  (1852) 5,  160,  180,  187,  188 

189,     191,     192,  193 
195.     205,     209,  225 
Lancaster  County  v.  Mishler,  100  Pa.  St. 

624   (1882)    158,  159,  181,  190,  191,  193.  198 

199,  221,  224,  225,  237,  241 

Langton's  Case,  Mss.,  i  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  414 76 

Lee's  Case,  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  474  (1891).  ..168,  169,  180,  183,  190,  191,  193 

197,  200,  201,  202,  203,  204,  205 
206,  237,  238 

Leigh  v.  Burleigh,  Owen,  122  (1610) 28,  29,  116 

Lelar  ats.  Commonwealth,  5  Clark,  167  (1852) 153 

Lewen's  Case,  2  Lewin,  C.  C.  12  (1834) 123 

Lewis's    Case,    Unreported 178 

London,  Case  of  the  City  of,  8  Coke's  Reports,  I2ia  (1610) .  .31,  70,    72 

Long's  Case,  5  Coke's  Reports,  I2ob  (1605) 126 

Lord  Buckhurst's  Case,  I  Keble,  278  (1662) 61,  63,  75,  76,  124,  165 

Lord  Cornwallis  ats.  Hoyle,  I  Strange,  387  (1719) 144 

Lord  Morley's  Case,  3  State  Trials,  941,  Keyl,  56,  7  State  Trials, 

421    137,  138 

Luzerne  County  v.  Day,  23  Pa.  St.  141  (1854) 243 


272  TABLE  OF  CASES 

Pages 

Lynch  ats.  Commonwealth,  16  S.  &  R.  368  (1827) 153 

McClay  ats.  Commonwealth,  8  Watts,  153  (1839) 153 

McClung  ats.  Allegheny,  53  Pa.  St.  482  (1866) 158,  162,  187,  205 

McFadgen  v.  Chester  County,  10  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  124,  s.  c.  7  Mont. 

149  (1891) 5,  157,  158,  159,  160,  180,  183,  184,  185,  187,  188 

189,  190,  191,  197,  198,  204,  207,  208,  209,  237 
238,  239 
McKean  ats.  Walker,  31  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  664,  15  Dist. 

577  (iQOS)  157,  158,  182,  203,  205 

206,  220,  241,  242 

McKean  ats.  Winger,  n  Dist.  555,  s.  c.  26  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  126,  8  Del. 
Co.  431,  18  Mont.  88  (1901) .  .180,  182,  186,  189,  190,  191,  198,  201,  206 

McKensey's  Appropriation,  3  Pa.  St.  156  (1846) 152 

McMichen  ats.  Commonwealth,  38  Pa.  St.  213  ( 1868) 153 

Macauley  ats.  Rex,  9  Coke's  Reports,  666  (1612) 93 

Magrath  ats.  Rex,  2  Strange,  1242  (1746) 109,  132 

Marvin  Shaft  Inquest,  3  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  10  (1887) 157,  158,  169,  188,  189 

199,  202,  203,  206,  209 

221,  222,  223,  227,   234 
240,  241,  243,  244 

Metzger's  Inquest,  8  Dist.  573  (1899) 163,  166,  167,  169,  180,  181,  184 

189,  190,  191,  193,  197,  198,  199 

200,  201,  2O2,  206,  211,  224,  24O 
241 

Milbourn's  Case,  7  Coke's  Reports,  6b  (1587) 60 

Miller  v.  Cambria  County,  29  Pa.  Superior 

Ct.   166    (1905) 159,  181,  182,  190,  191,  193,  238 

Miller  ats.  Smith,  13  S.  &  R.  339  (1825) iS3 

Mishler  ats.  Lancaster,  100  Pa.  St.  624  (1882) 158,  159,  181,  190,  191 

193,  198,  199,  221,  224 
225,  237,  241 
Missimer,  in  re,  20  Mont.  200,  s.  c.  3  Pa.  J.  L.  R.  88,  18  York,  115 

(1904)   163,  169,  198,  222 

Morgan  v.  Wye,  Croke's  Elizabeth,  574  (1594) 141.  232 

Morley's  Case,  3  State  Trials,  941,  Keyl,  56,  7  State  Trials,  421.  .137,  138 

Morris's  Estate,  4  Pa.  St.  162  (1846) 152 

Muldoon  ats.  Bleiler,  16  Pa.  Superior  Ct.  553  (1901) 248 

Naylor's  Case,  Freeman,  191    (1675) 143 

Nichola  ats.  Smith,  6  Dist.  595,  s.  c.  19  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  440  (1897) 23i 

Norris  ats.  Commonwealth,  13  Kulp's  Luz.  Leg.  Reg.  i,  s.  c.  15  Dist. 

821    (1905)    227,  228 

Northampton  County  v.  Innes,  26  Pa.  St.  156  (1856) ..  .188,  191,  198,  211 

237,  241 
Northampton  County  ats.  Uhler,  i  Lehigh  Valley, 

213   (1886)    158,  159,  161,  188,  189 

193,  195,  202,  203,  205 
Northampton  ats.  Weaver,  2  Lehigh  Valley,  408 

(1887) 158,  160,  180,  190,  205 

224,  238,  244 
Oiley's  Case,  Sir  Francis,  Crokes',  James,  635,  pi.  2  (1623) 127 


TABLE  OF  CASES  273 

Pages 
Paige's  Case,  45  Edward  III,  reported,  I  Kale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown, 

4J7  133,  134 

Paine  ate.  Rex,  I  Lord  Raymond,  729,  s.  c.  i  Salkeld,  281  (1692)..  137 

Palmer  v.  Humphries,  Croke's  Elizabeth,  584,  pi.  13  (1598) 131 

Parker  ats.  Rex,  2  Levinz,  141,  3  Keble, 

489    (1675)    61,  62,  89,  125,  126,  129,  130 

132,  133,  134,  135,  136 
Pastow  ats.  Corne,  Yelverton,  15,  s.  c.  Croke's  Elizabeth,  894 

(1602)    I4I)  232 

Patrick's  Case,  Croke's  James,  528  ( 1620) 72 

Petty's  Case,  Sir  John,  2  Keble,  705-733   (1771) 100 

Pf out's  Case,  7  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  265  (1889) 166,  167,  168,  169,  183,  189 

190,  191,  193,  197,  198,  199 
20 1,  202,  204,  206,  238 
Philadelphia  v.  Gilbert,  14  Phila.  212,  s.  c.  37  Leg.  Int.  376  (1880).  248 

Phillips  ats.  Rex,  i  Strange,  261  ( 1720) 126,  129 

Pickett  v.  Erie  County,  19  W.  N.  C.  60,  s.  c.  4  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  23 

(1887) 5,  36,  158,  162,  166,  167,  169,  198,  209,  2ii 

234,  237,  239,  241,  242,  244 
Pinner's  Case,  Croke's  Elizabeth,  31,  pi.  4  (1548).. 84,  125,  126,  127,  223 

Ployer  ats.  Rich,  2  Shower,  286  ( 1683) 140,  143 

Plume's  Case,  Latch,  210,  s.  c.  Palmer,  480  (1628) 73 

Potter  v.  Shields,  200,  Pa.  St.  241  ( 1901 ) 174 

Proctor's  Case,  Dyer,  222b,  223  (1563) 73,  82,  136 

Purefoy  ats.  Rex,  Maidstone  Summer  Assize,  1794 117 

Purnell,  ex  parte,  i  Jacobs  v.  Walker,  431  (1820) 53 

Puttenham's  Case,  Dyer,  3i7a  (1572) 72,    82 

Queen  v.  Clerk,  i  Salkeld,  377,  s.  c.  Holt,  167, 

pi.    3    (1702) 58,  61,  62,  75,  93,  96,    97 

109,  125,  126,  127,  130,  135 

Queen  v.  Colmer,  9  Cox  C.  C.  506  ( 1864) 1 16 

Queen  v.  Ferrand,  2  Barnwell  &  Alderson,  260 101,  no 

Queen  v.  Great  Western  R.  R.,  43  E.  C.  L.  R.  759  (1842) 183,  184 

Queen  v.  Her  ford,  3  Ellis  &  Ellis,  115,  s.  c.  6  Jurist  (N.  S.)   75°, 

20  L.  J.  Q.  B.  249  (1860) 67 

Queen  v.  Ingham,  5  Best  &  Smith,  257  (1864) 101 

Queen  v.  Stockdale,  8  Dowl  P.  C.  516  (1840) 123,  126,  223 

Queen  v.  Thomas,  Leigh  &  Cave,  313  (1863) 67 

Rambo  v.  Chester  County,  i  Chester  County,  414-416 

(1878)    183,  189,  191,  199 

243,   244,   247 

Rainey  ats.  Commonwealth,  4  W.  &  S.  146  (1842) 152 

Ralston's  Petition,  9  Dist.  514,  s.  c.  30  P.  L. 

J.  410  (1900) 160,180,  181,  223,  224,  225 

Regina  v.  Clerk,  i  Salkeld,  377,  s.  c.  Holt,  167, 

pi.    3    (1702) 58,61,62,75,93,96,    97 

109,  125,  126,  127,  130,  135 

Regina  v.  Colmer,  9  Cox  C.  C.  506  (1864) 116 

Regina  v.  Ferrand,  2  Barnwell  &  Alderson,  260 tor,  no 

Regina  v.  Great  Western  R.  R.,  43  E.  C.  L.  R.  759  (1842) 183,  184 


274  TABLE  OF  CASES 

Pages 
Regina  v.  Herford,  3  Ellis  &  Ellis,  115,  s.  c.  6  Jurist  (N.  S.)  750, 

20  L.  J.  Q.  B.  249  (1860) 67 

Regina  v.  Ingham,  5  Best  &  Smith,  257  (1864) 101 

Regina  v.  Stockdale,  8  Dowl  P.  C.  516  (1840) 123,  126,  223 

Reitlinger's  Case,  2  Kulp,  127  (1882) 166,  167,  169,  224,  238,  239 

Reitnauer's  Inquest,  14  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  46  (1894) 174,  177 

Rentschler  v.   Schuylkill   County,   I    Schuylkill  Legal   Record,  289 

(1880)   5,  157,  158,  161,  162,  188,  209 

Resolutions  at  Sergeant's  Inn,  Dyer,  165   (1558) 34,    48 

Rex  v.  Aldenham,  3  Keble,  564-566  (1675) 133 

Rex  v.  Alderman,  2    Levinz,   152,    s.  c.    Freeman,    419,  3    Keble, 

564-566,    604,    s.    c.   sub    nom    Anonymous,     I    Ventris,    278 

(1678)   103,  108,  114,  125,  129,  133,  134,  178 

Rex  v.  Atkinson,  12  Modern,  496  (1702) 130 

Rex  v.  Bond,  i  Strange,  22  (1717) 61,  62,  96,  97,  129 

Rex  v.  Brunswick,  2  Keble,  19,  s.  c.  sub  nom  Brunswick's 

Case,  I  Levinz,  180  (1666) 115,  117,  137 

Rex  v.  Bunney,  i  Salkeld,  190,  2  Saunders, 

291,    Carthew,    72 61,  89,  93,  97,  107,  108,  114 

125,  126,  128,  129,  135,  137 

Rex  v.  Causey  Mss.,  2  Bacon's  Abridgment,  429  (1717) 62 

Rex  v.  The  Coroner,  Comberback,  2  ( 1686) 131 

Rex  v.  Cross,  i  Keble,  744,  i  Keble,  723,  i  Sider- 

fen,  204,  Popham,  210  (1664) 94,  100,  126,  127,  129 

Rex  v.  Dalton,  2  Strange,  911   (1722) 109,  132 

Rex  v.  Dolby,  Umf reville's  Lex  Coronatoris,  144 142 

Rex  v.  Eriswell,  3  Term  Reports,  713  (1790) 113,  117 

Rex  v.  Harrison,  I  Siderfen,  255-259  (1666) 127,  128,  129,  130 

Rex  v.  Heathershall,  3  Modern,  80  (1685) 97,  108,  114,  125,  128 

129,  131,  135,  224 

Rex  v.  Heaton,  2  Term  Reports,  184  (1787) 133 

Rex  v.  Justices  of  Kent  n  East  228  (1809) 87,  91,  159,  189,  190 

237,  238,  250 

Rex  v.  Killinghall,  i  Burroughs,  17   (1756) 114,  115 

Rex  v.  Macauley,  9  Coke's  Reports,  666  ( 1612") 93 

Rex  v.  Magrath,  2  Strange,  1242  (1746)   109,  132 

Rex  v.  Paine,  i  Lord  Raymond,  729,  s.  c.  I  Salkeld,  281  (1692) 137 

Rex.  v.  Parker,  2  Levinz,  141,  3  Keble,  489  (1675) . .  .61,  62,  89,  125,  126 

129,    130,    132,  133 

134,    135,    136 

Rex  v.  Phillips,  i  Strange,  261   (1720) 126,  129 

Rex  v.  Purefoy,  Maidstone  Summers  Assize,  1794  117 

Rex  v.  Ripley,  Skinner,  45,  pi.  16,  s.  c.  2  Jones,  198, 

2  Shower   190   (1680) 108,  125,  128,  129 

130,  133,  134,  135 

Rex  v.  Roupel,  Cowper,  458  (1776) 133 

Rex  v.  Saunders,  i  Strange,  167  (1719) 62,  97,  129 

Rex  v.  Scorey,  i  Leach,  43  (1749) 75,  107,  108,  109,  116,  214 

Rex  v.  Solgard,  Andrews,    231,    s.    c.   2    Strange,    1097 

(1738)    61,  92,  116,  129 


TABLE  OF  CASES  275 

Pages 

Rex  v.  Solway,  3  Modern,  100,  pi.  61  (1686) 126,  128,  130,  222 

Rex  v.  Stanlake,  2  Keble,  859  (1671) 128,  133 

Rex  v.  Storke,  2  Keble,  800  (1679) 128,  120,  133,  134 

Rex  v.  Stukeley,  Holt,  167,  s.  c.  12  Modern,  493  (1701) 61,  103,  108 

Rex  v.  Sutton,  2  Strange,  1073  (1737) 124,  129 

Rex  v.  Thomas,  Leigh  &  Cave,  313  ( 1863) 67 

Rex  v.  Wakefield,  I  Strange,  69  (1718) 75,  108,  129,  130 

Rex  v.  Warrington,  i  Salkeld,  152  (1692) 129,  140,  143,  231,  232 

Rex  v.  Yaundel,  4  Term  Reports,  542  ( 1792) 72 

Reynolds  v.  Supreme  Conclave,  19  Lane.  L.  R.  129,  s.  c.  2  Blair, 

210    (1902)     225 

Rich  v.  Ployer,  2  Shower,  286  (1683) 140,  143 

Richards  ats.  Southampton,  i  Keble,  416 127 

Ripley's  Case,  2  Jones,  198,  2  Shower,  199,  Skinner,  45 108,  125,  128 

129,  130,  133 

134.  135 

Roupel  ats.  Rex,  Cowper,  458  ( 1776) 133 

Sadler's  Case,  4  Coke's  Reports,  57b  (1588) 21,  22,  97 

Sairbl  v.  Candith,  Yelverton,  214  (1612) 141,  232 

Saunders  ats.  Rex,  I  Strange,  167  (1719) 62,  97,  129 

Schrogs  v.  Spencer,  Moore,  548,  pi.  734  (1675) 125 

Schulz,  ex  parte,  6  Wharton,  269  (1841) 5,  22,  158,  166,  170,  177 

178,  187,  209,  222 

Schuylkill  County  ats.  Fogarty,  13  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  454  (1893) 172,  245 

Schuylkill    County    ats.    Rentschler,    i    Schuylkill    Legal    Record, 

289  (1880)   5,  157,  158,  161,  162,  188,  209 

Scorey  ats.  Rex,  i  Leach,  43  (1749) 75,  107,  108,  109,  116,  214 

Shaefer  v.  Jack,  14  S.  &  R.  426  (1826) 153 

Shaw  ats.  Allegheny,  34  Pa.  St.  301,  s.  c.  7  P.  L.  J.  217,  12  W.  N. 

C.  312,  14  Lane.  Bar,  101,  39  Leg.  Int.  459  (1859)  --I59,  iQi,  209,  241 

Shields  v.  Potter,  200  Pa.  St.  241  (1901) 174 

Smith's  Case,  Comberback,  386  (1697) 75/99,  102,  103,  178 

Smith's  Case,  4  Lane.  L.  R.  302  (1887) 160,  195,  203,  222,  227,  228 

Smith  ats.  Commonwealth,  9  Dist.  350,  s.  c.  3  Dauphin,  159,  7  North, 
255,  6  Lack.  L.  N.  151,  s.  c.  sub  now  Commonwealth,  v.  Dau- 
phin County  Commissioners,  23  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  646  174 

Smith  ats.  Miller,  13  S.  &  R.  339  (1825) 153 

Smith  v.  Nichola,  6  Dist.  595,  s.  c.  19  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  440  (1897) 231 

Snyder  v.  Commonwealth,  3  P.  &  W.  286  (1831) 153 

Solgard  ats.  Rex,  Andrews,   231,  s.  c.   2    Strange,    1097 

(1738)    61,  92,  116,  129 

Solway  ats.  Rex,  3  Modern,  100,  pi.  61  (1686) 126,  128,  130,  222 

Southampton  v.  Richards,  I  Keble,  416 127 

Spencer  ats.  Schroggs,  Moore,  548,  pi.  734  (1675) 125 

Sprang  v.  Commonwealth,  12  Pa.  St.  358  (1849) 152 

Sprecot's  Case,  5  Coke's  Reports,  s8b  (1590) 5<>,  52,  53 

Springer  ats.  Commonwealth,  13  W.  N.  C.  305  (1883) 153 

Stanlack's  Case,  I  Ventris,  182,  s.  c.  I  Modern,  82-671 

(1671)     62,  76,  126,  130,  170 

Stanlake  ats.  Rex,  3  Keble,  859  (1671) I28,  133 


276  TABLE  OF  CASES 

Pages 

Stockdale  ats.  Regina,  8  Dowl  P.  C.  516  (1840) 123,  126,  223 

Stoecker's  Inquest,  3  Kulp,  487  (1890) 177,  196,  204 

Storke  ats.  Rex,  2  Keble,  800  (1679) 128,  129,  133,  134 

Stukeley  ats.  Rex,  Holt,  167,  s.  c.  12  Modern,  493  (1701) 61,  103,  108 

Supreme  Conclave  ats.  Reynolds,  19  Lane.  L.  R.  129,  s.  c.  2  Blair, 

210  (1902)  225 

Sutton  ats.  Rex,  2  Strange,  1073  (1737) 124,  129 

Taylor  v.  Clark,  3  Levinz,  399  (1695) 142,  143 

Thomas  v.  Churston,  2  Best  &  Smith,  475,  s.  c.  8  Jurist  (N.  S.)» 

795  (1862)  119 

Thomas  ats.  Regina,  Leigh  &  Cave,  313  (1863) 67 

Thorney's  Case,  Croke's  James,  276  (1612) 126 

Tioga  County  ats.  Francis,  8  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  163  ( 1889) 247 

Tombes  v.  Etherington,  i  Levinz,  120  (1663) 34,  46 

Travener's  Case,  3  Bulstrode,  176  (1617) 7,  20,  93,  102,  177 

Troutman  v.  Chambers,  9  Dist.  533  ( 1900) . . .  163,  172,  186,  239,  240,  245 
Uhler  v.  Northampton  County,  i  Lehigh  Valley, 

213  (1886)  158,  159,  161,  188,  189 

193,  I9S,  202,  203,  205 

Wakefield  ats.  Rex,  i  Strange,  69  (1718) 75,  108,  129,  130 

Walker  v.  McKean  County,  31  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  664, 

15   Dist.   577    (1905) 157,  158,  182,  203,  205 

2O6,   220,  241,  242 

Warrington  ats.  Rex,  i  Salkeld,  152  (1692) 129,  140,  143,  231,  232 

Watson  v.  Beaver  County,  9  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  495,  s.  c.  27  W.  N.  C. 

469  (1891)   158,  160,  180,  189,  198,  199,  202,  206,  239 

Watts  ats.  Allegheny  County,  3  Pa.  St.  462  (1846)  .  .158,  209,  241,  242,  244 
Weaver  v.  Northampton  County,  2  Lehigh  Valley,  408 

(1887)    158,  160,  180,  190 

205,  224,  238,  244 
Welchmen's  Case,  Latch,  166   (1662),  s.  c. 

Popham,  209   (1656)    58,  89,  93  100,  127,  133,  134 

Wells  v.  Bain,  75  Pa.  St.  39  ( 1874) 149 

Weston  v.  Coulson,  I  Wm.  Blackstone's  Rep.  506  (1763) 139,  231 

Wigges  ats.  Wrote,  4  Cokes'  Reports,  46  (1592)  .  .21, 23,  24,  25,  26,  27,    46 

Wilson  ats.  Commonwealth,  7  W.  &  S.  181  (1844) 153 

Winger  v.  McKean  County,  n  Dist.  555,  s.  c.  26  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  126, 

8  Del.  Co.  431,  18  Mont  88  (1901) 180,  182,  186,  189,  190 

191,  198,  201,  206 

Wingfield's  Case,  21  Edward  IV,  70-71 58,  61,  62,  89,  96,    97 

Wiseman  ats.  Lambe,  Hobart,  70 71,     72 

Withipole's  Case,  Croke's  Charles,   134-147,  Jones,  198-9,  Ley,  81 

(1628) 98,  99,   127,  177 

Witmore's  Case,  3  Dist.  699,  s.  c.  14  Pa. 

C.  C.  R.  464  (1894)  180,  183,  184,  191,  193,  198,  199 

20O,   201,  202,  204,  238,  239 

Wolverton  ats.  Commonwealth,  7  S.  &  R.  273  (1821) 153 

Woods'  Appeal,  75  Pa.  St.  59  (1874) 149 

Wrote  v.  Wigges,  4  Cokes'  Reports,  46  (1592)  .  .21,  23,  24,  25,  26,  27,  46 

Wye  ats.  Morgan,  Croke's  Elizabeth,  574  (1594) 141,  232 


TABLE  OF  CASES  277 

Pages 

Yaundel  ats.  Rex,  4  Term  Reports,  542  (1792) 72 

Year  Book  30  &  31,  Edward  I,  522 18,  85,  93 

"        "         8,  Edward    II,  Coron.  399   28 

8,  Edward    II,  Coron.  416    96 

"        "         8,  Edward    II,  Coron.  421  63 

"        "         8,  Edward    II,   Coron.  435    74 

3,  Edward  III,  Coron.  292    63,  76 

"        "         3,  Edward  III,  Coron.  299   60 

3,  Edward  III,    33    135 

5,  Edward  III,  nu.    38    49 

8,  Edward  III,  38    22 

"  "  17,  Edward  III,  16  21 

"  "  21,  Edward  III,  Coron.  238  60 

"  "  22,  Edward  III,  12  32 

"  "  25,  Edward  III,  42,  pi.  35  136 

"  "  29,  Edward  III,  42  68,  69 

29,  Edward  III,  Coron.  462  68,  69 

"  "  34,  Edward  III,  146  82 

38,  Edward  III,  14  73 

"  "  43,  Edward  III,  26 137,  139,  141,  232 

6,  Richard  II,  Coron.  107  58,  89,    97 

7,  Henry  IV,   47    22 

"        "       II,  Henry  IV,  93    131 

13,  Henry  IV,  13,  pi.  6 135 

"        "       14,  Henry  IV,  I5b,  16  83 

14,  Henry  IV,  34-5  57,  69,  71,  142,  143,  144 

5,  Henry  V,  Coron.  437   68 

2,  Henry  VI,   12   140,   141,  232 

"         3,  Henry  VI,  6-40-41-42   57 

4,  Henry  VI,  16  17,  70,  82,    83 

7,  Henry  VI,  333,  36a  139 

"       19,  Henry  VI,  47    56 

"        "       22,  Henry  VI,  4ib 139,  140,  231 

"       32,  Henry  VI,   27    53 

"     .  "       35,  Henry  VI,    I5a    9* 

"       35,  Henry  VI,  33b,  pi.  276  64,  65,    66 

36,  Henry  VI,  31    135 

"        "       39,  Henry  VI,   41    143 

4,  Edward  IV,  43   71,  135,  M3 

8,  Edward  IV,  4    133>  134 

13,  Edward  IV,  3,  pi.  7  •  •  •  T3L  135 

"  "  15,  Edward  IV,  24 142,  233 

18,  Edward  IV,  7b-8  141.  142,  232,  233 

"  "  21,  Edward  IV,  70 58,61,62,89,96,97,129 

22,  Edward  IV,  12  125 

1,  Richard  III,  6  135 

2,  Richard  III,  £2 58,61,62,89,    96 

2,  Henry  VII,  33   72,  231 

3,  Henry  VII    82 

4,  Henry  VII,    i7-i8-i8b    95 


278  TABLE  OF  CASES 

Pages 

Year  Book    6,  Henry  VII,   loa    35 

14,  Henry  VII,  2b   131,  135 

14,  Henry  VII,  3ib  141,  232 

8,  Henry  VIII,  12  233 

I,  Elizabeth,  152,  pi.  2  46 

Young  v.  Commonwealth,  4  Binney,  113  (1811),  s.  c.  6  Binney, 

88  (1813)   151,  152 


INDEX. 

(References  are  to  Pages.) 

Pages 
Abolition  of  the  office,  see  Creation  and  abolition  of  the  office. 

Accessories  before  the  fact  inquired  of 95 

Admiralty    coroner 23,  27 

jurisdiction  of   27  to  30 

returns  inquisitions  where   124 

Alfred,  King,  supposed  to  have  created  the  office  of  coroner 8 

Allegheny  County,  coroner's  fees  in  236 

juror's  fees  in 243 

surgeon's  fees  in,  law  as  to  reasonableness  of ...  242 
Appeals,  see  powers  and  duties  in  general. 
Appointment  or  election  : 

Appointment,  what  coroner  subject  of  in  England,  see  Nature 
of  office,  kinds  of  coroners. 

Appointment  of  coroners  in  Pennsylvania 146 

Causes  for  election  in  England   46 

Commission  of  coroners  in  Pennsylvania 151 

Election  in  England   44 

franchise  at  44 

how  conducted  33,  44,  45 

not   annual    52 

when  held   45 

Election  in  Pennsylvania   146 

method  prior  to  1701   146 

method  from  1701  to  1799  147 

present  method    149 

Removal,  see  Eligibility  and  qualification. 

Number  of  coroners  elected  in  each  county  in  England 32 

Number  of  coroners  elected  in  each  county  in  Pennsylvania.  146,  149 

Writ  de  coronatore  elegendo  45 

return  of   45 

Writ  de  coronatore  exonerando  50 

obsolete    150 

Armstrong  County,  coroner's  duties  in    196 

Arrest,  see  Inquest — arrest  of  person  charged. 

Arsons,   inquest   into    65 

Articles  in  Eyre  of  1194  considered  foundation  of  the  office 8,  9 

Articulae,  super  cartas 24,  25,  44 

Assistants,  see  Deputies  and  assistants ;  Justice  of  the  peace  acting 

as  coroner. 
Autopsy,  see  Inquest — autopsy. 

Bail,  admission  to  after  verdict  of  coroner's  jury 132 

Beaver  County,  coroner's  fees  in  236 

juror's  fees  in   243 

(279) 


280  INDEX 

Pages 

Berks  County,  coroner's  fees  in  236 

surgeons  fees  in,  law  as  to  reasonableness  of  242 

Blair  County,  surgeon's  fees  in,  law  as  to  reasonableness  of 242 

Bodies,  dead,  see  Inquest,  deposition  of  body  and  property  found 

on  it. 
Bond,  see  Liabilities  on  official  bond. 

Bucks  County,  coroner's  fees  in   236 

deputy  coroners  appointed  under  Act  of  1873 172 

first  coroner  of    146 

surgeon's  fees  in,  law  as  to  reasonableness  of  242 

Cambria  County,  coroner's  fees  in  236 

duties  of  coroner  in  195 

Camville,  Gerard  de   10 

Carbon  County,  duties  of  coroner  in  195 

juror's   fees  in    243 

Centre  County,  return  where  made  221 

Certiorari  to  force  return  124,  160,  224 

Charter  of  Privileges  of  1701 147 

Chester  County,  deputy  coroners  appointed  in  under  Act  of  1864..   172 

first  coroner  of   146 

Cinque  Ports,  charter  of   16 

coroners    of    16 

Clearfield  County,  return  where  made   221 

Codification  of  the  laws,  suggestions  as  to  250 

Colchester,  charter  to  the  Burgesses  of  10,     12 

Common  law  of  England  in  Pennsylvania  5 

Common   law  of   Pennsylvania,   defined 145 

Compensation  and  fees : 

audit  of  coroner's  accounts  237 

deputies'  fees  of,  under  Act  of  1897 244 

early  history  of  laws  concerning 234,  235 

fees  allowed  first  when 50,    87 

de  jure  coroner  only,  entitled  to 234 

denied    coroner  if  he    acts    without    sufficient 

cause    238 

denied  in  ancient  times  where  person  died  by 

misadventure    87 

forbidden  in  ancient  times — 50,    86 

duplications    of  in    cases  of    more    than    one 

inquest    234,  247 

penalties  for  receiving  in  ancient  times 86 

penny,  one,  always  allowed 87 

for  preliminary   examination    under    the    Act 

of   1897    24° 

fee  system    responsible  for    evils    of    present    con- 
ditions   159,  163,  200,  237 

criticism  of  county  courts  relative  to. 202,  203 

items  of  compensation 234,  239,  240,  241 

juror's  fees  and  mileage 243 


INDEX  281 

Pages 

justice  of  the  peace  acting  as  coroner,  fees  of...  175,  239 

mileage   234,  235 

physician,  compensation  of,  for  autopsy 234 

salaries   of   coroners 247 

surgeon,  compensation  of,  for  autopsy 234 

wheat,  compensation  of  coroner  may  be  paid  in 237 

witnesses  not  entitled  to  fees  or  mileage 241 

Constable,  when  process  issues  to   233 

Costs,  see  Inquests,  cost  and  expenses ;  Compensation  and  fees. 

Counsel,  right  to  before  coroner no,  in,  214,  215,  216 

Creation  and  abolition  of  the  office : 

abolition,   necessity   for 249 

age  of  the  office 7,  8,  9 

alterations  in  the  office  in  transportation  to  Pennsylvania.  145 
articles  in  Eyre  of    1194  considered    foundation    of    the 

office    8,  9 

earliest  authentic  records  of  coroners 10 

Eyre  system,  coroner  concomitant  in  15 

history  of  the  office  in  England 10 

history  of  the  office  in  Pennsylvania 145 

no  coroners  in  early  Pennsylvania  145 

justitiari  of  early  Norman  times  12 

period  of  creation  limited   9 

Rotuli  curiae  regis  rarely  mention  office  14 

theories  concerning  origin  or  creation  14,  16 

Crimes,  relation  of  the  office  of  coroner  to  the  subject  of  6 

Criminal  responsibility : 

impeachment   165 

improper    inquest    165 

individual  not  joint   143 

jury  not  sworn  90 

misfeasance  in  office   75 

neglect   in   office    75 

penalty  for  not  returning  inquest  124 

prescribed  by  the  Act  of  Third  Henry  VII  87 

refusal  to  act   75 

return  not  made   124 

wrong   presentment    165 

Delaware   County,   return,   where   made 221 

Deodands,  defined   122 

inquired  of  in  England 42,  54,  55,  90,  94,  121,  122 

unimportant  in  Pennsylvania   156,  180 

Depositions,  see  Inquest,  evidence;  Inquest,  verdict  and  inquisition. 
Deputies  and  assistants : 

admiralty  coroner,  deputies  of   84 

appointment  in  England,  in  general 143 

appointment  by  coroners  sive  commissions 32 

deputy  coroner's  powers  in  England 143 

deputy,  office  of,  created  in  Pennsylvania  172 

constitutionality  of  Act  of  1889 174 


282  INDEX 

Pages 

Act  of   1893    . , 174 

constitutionality  of  Act  of   1893    174 

compensation   of    172 

conflict  of  jurisdiction  with  that  of  justice  of  the 

peace  acting  as  coroner   175 

duty  to  make  preliminary  examination 186 

compensation    for    244 

duties,  what,  subject  of  delegation  83 

impossible  at  common  law   83,  84,  166 

exceptions    32 

Duties,  see  Powers  and  duties  in  general ;  Inquests. 

Edward  the  Confessor,  laws  of 14 

Effect  of  the  inquisition: 

in   general    125 

in    England    125 

in   Pennsylvania    222 

admission  to  bail  after    132 

credit  anciently  given    131 

credit  not  given    131 

disposition  of  inquest    97 

evidence,  effect  of  inquisition  as  137 

evidence,  effect  of,  to  be  put  in  writing  in  no 

innocence   established  by    197 

indictment,    as 222 

not  binding  on  prosecution   109 

melius  inquirendum    97 

when  awarded   128,  129,  130,  131 

traversability    137 

obsolete  in  Pennsylvania   160,   166,  223 

parallel  proceedings  invariable   160 

quashing,  causes  for,  in  England 128 

remedy  for  improper  inquest  in  England 129 

traversability  97,  129,  132,  133,  134,  135,  136 

Election,  see  Appointment  or  election. 
Eligibility  and  qualification : 

in  general,  in  England  46  to  51 

in  general,  in  Pennsylvania 149,  150,  151 

bond  and  recognizance,  liabilities  on,  see  Liabilities  on 
Official  Bond. 

eligibility  in  general,  in  England  46 

ineligibility  to  office  of  justice  of  the  peace 47 

incompetence  to  act  until  qualified   151 

qualifications  in  England — 

in  general    48 

business  other  than  public  forbidden  49 

inconsistent  offices   49,  50 

knighthood  18,  37,  46 

reasons    for    18,  47 

obsolete    48 

land    47,  49 


INDEX  283 

Pages 

oath  33,    46 

nature  of   46 

substance   47,    48 

trade  forbidden   49 

qualifications  in  Pennsylvania — 

bond    149,  150 

condition  of  bond    150 

copies  of  record  of,  evidence 152 

recording  151 

sureties  and  approval  of   151,  152 

business  other  than  public  forbidden 150 

declaration    of    Christian    belief    formerly 

requisite     146,  150 

oath    149,  150 

property    149 

recognizance    151 

recording  151 

recognizance  and  bond,  liabilities  on,  see  Liabilities  on 

Official  Bond, 
removal  from  office: 

procedure  in  cases  of  52 

reasons  for  49,  50,  51 

without  cause    52 

writ  de  coronatore  exonerando  50 

obsolete    150 

Elisors,    denned    140 

when  appointed   140,  223 

English  common  law  in  Pennsylvania 5 

English  law  of  coroners,  need  for  study  of  5 

English  statutes  in  force  in  Pennsylvania  5 

Englishery    55,  122 

Erie  County,  coroner's  fees  in  236 

juror's  fees  in   243 

Evidence,  see  Inquest,  evidence. 
Expenses,  see  Inquest,  costs  and  expenses. 

Fayette  County,  return  where  made  221 

Fees,  see  Compensation  and  fees. 

First  finders,  bound  over  to  appear  in  court 123 

Fitzpeter,  Geoffrey   9,  10 

Flight,  finding  of  134 

Flight,   forfeiture   for   134,  253 

Forfeiture,  for  flight  134.  253 

Forfeitures,  for  suspicion  of  felony  43 

Forfeitures,  inquired  of   90,  95 

unimportant  in  Pennsylvania   156,  180 

Forms : 

adjournment    220 

bond    250 

inquisition    254 

oath  of  jurors  give  in  the  mirror 251 


284  INDEX 

Pages 

oath  of  jurors  217 

oath  of  witnesses 218 

opening  of  court 217 

recognizance  251 

writ  de  coronatore  elegendo  45 

writ  de  coronatore  exonerando  50 

Form  of  inquisition  discussed  125 

Frame  of  Government  of  1683  146,  154 

Frame  of  Government  of  1696 147 

Franchises,  coroners  of: 

jurisdiction    31 

ministerial   duties    141 

returns,   where   made    125 

Grand  jury,  finding  of,  compared  with  coroner's  verdict 132 

relation  of  coroner's  inquest  to  109 

Hall,  Robert,  first  coroner  of  Bucks  County 146 

Henry  I,  laws  of 13 

History  of  the  office  in  England  7  to    18 

History  of  the  office  in  Pennsylvania 145 

Holding  over,  see  Term  of  Office  Vacancies  and  Holding  Over. 

Hue  and  cry,  to  be  levied,  when 42 

Indiana  County,  surgeon's  fees  in  law  as  to  reasonableness  of 242 

Inquest : 

arrest  of  person  charged — 

in  England   40,  90,  123 

in  Pennsylvania  220 

autopsy,  fee  for,  de  facto  coroner  can  bind  county  for.  .234,  242 

necessity   for    210 

surgeon,  compensation  of  234 

compensation,  to  be  reasonable 241 

what    is    reasonable 242 

paid  though  coroner  gets 

none    242 

county  commissioners  cannot  appoint..  159 
costs  and  expenses — 

ancillary   expenses    244 

duplication  of  costs,  in    cases    of    more    than    one 

inquest    247 

inquests  at  cost  of  party  desiring  it 206 

paid  by  slayer,  what  portion  is  to  be  234 

paid  by  whom 234 

course  and  conduct  of  the  proceedings  in  general — 

in  England    57,  97,  142 

in  Pennsylvania   208  to  220 

adjournment    220 

arrangement  of  the  court  217 

counsel,  right  to  no,  ill,  214,  215,  216 

opening  court   217 

place  of  holding 93,  208 

time  of  holding 92,  93,  208 


INDEX  285 

Pages 

disposition  of  the  body  and  property  found  on  it — 
of  the  body,  in  general : 

in  England   40,  123 

in   Pennsylvania    164,  218 

burial  without  sending  for  coroner. 61,  182,  209 

cremation  when  allowable  218 

morgue  cases    229 

suicide  cases   123 

of  the  clothing  and  property 230 

disinterring   61,  182,  209 

evidence,  all,  duty  of  the  coroner  to  hear  107,  214 

body   as    107,  213 

depositions  as  evidence  in  other  cases...  137,  138,  225 
effect   of,    duty   of  the   coroner    to    put   in 

writing    no,  214 

limitations  to   218 

marks  on  the  body  as 107,  213 

oath  to,  necessity  of  107,  219 

rules  for  guidance  of  coroners  concerning 219 

jurisdiction  and  authority — 

authority  to  disinter  body  for  inquest 61,  209 

when  it  may  be  done  61,    96 

leave  of  court  62,    96 

body  must  be  left  for  view  by  coroner.  .61,  182,  209 

burial  without  sending  for  coroner 61,  182,  209 

disinterring,  see  authority  to  disinter  (supra), 

inquests  other  than  death 55 

inquests  where  coroner  cannot  inquire 62,  171 

inquests  where  coroner  neglects  to  inquire 76 

jurisdiction  in  England 34,  35,     54 

admiralty  coroner   27 

concurrent,     of     admiralty     coroner     and 

county  coroner   28,  29,    30 

concurrent,  of  verge  coroner  and  county 

coroner    25,    26 

deaths  caused  in  another  county 36 

deaths  by  misadventure  caused  in  another 

county 37 

limitations  upon 25,  26,    34 

verge  coroner    24 

view  of  body,  necessity  for  62 

jurisdiction  in  Pennsylvania — 

in  general   . .  161 

conflicts  in    ...   162 

deaths  caused  in  another  county 162 

deaths  by  misadventure  caused  in  another 

county '•  •  162 

murder  and  manslaughter  said  to  be  extent 

of  jurisdiction    159.  181 

view  of  body,  necessity  for 62,  89,  209 


-'So  INDEX 

Pages 

jury,  absence  of  a  juror  218 

amoval  of   jurors 108 

attaint,  impossible  at  common  law 103 

appearance,  essential  if  summoned 98 

challenges,  right  to  98,  99,  177 

challenges,  usually  admitted 98,  99,  177 

composition,  in  early  times  39,  98,  102 

criminal  responsibility  98,  131,  177 

disagreements 102,  177 

fees 243 

fining  prohibited    98 

four  villes,  formerly  composed 39,    99 

instructions,  before  inquest 101,  217 

instructions,  after  inquest. .  .100,  177,  178,  214 

liabilities  for  misbehavior 98,  131,  177 

mileage    243 

mining  cases,  composition  in 227 

number  of  jurors  in  England -.     99 

number  of  jurors  in  Pennsylvania 177 

oath  of  jury  217 

privilege  to  find  contrary  to  evidence.  103,  179 

privilege  to  recall  witnesses   101,  177 

qualifications  in  general,  in  England ....     98 

as  to  estate  98 

as  to  residence 99 

in  general,  in  Pennsylvania  176 

relation  to  the  petit  jury 103 

remedy  for  misbehavior  of 131 

removal  of  jurors  from 108 

residence 99 

selection,  method  of  176 

summons  to,  how  served.  .39,  97,  157,  208,  209 

sworn 39,  101,  177,  214 

by  the  coroner 101,  214 

super  visum   cor- 

poris   89,  101,  no,  177,  214 

verdict,  attaint  of  impossible 103 

verdict,      formerly     attainable     without 

evidence    101 

view,  necessity  for   101,  177,  209 

circumstances  of  no,  214,  217 

witnesses,  should  not  qualify  on 101 

nature  and  necessity  in  general — 

date 93 

inquests  by  others  than  the  coroner 62,  171 

nature,  in  England — 

in  general   39,  40,    96 

accessories,  before  the  fact 95 

dangers  to  the  community 93,    96 

in  case  of  death  by  drowning 41 


INDEX  287 

Pages 

in  cases  of  death  ex  visitatione  die 90 

in  cases  of  death  felo  de  se go 

in  cases  of  death  by  the  hand  of  another. . .  90 

in  cases  of  death  per  infortunium 90 

culpability    29 

forfeitures 40 

name  of  deceased  40 

parties  present  39 

place  of  death  39 

threats    95 

accusation  not  the  purpose  109 

impartiality  of  inquiry 107 

judicial  character  83 

publicity  113 

in  Pennsylvania — 

in  general   180 

definition  of  object  180,  184 

application  of  definition 181 

corallaries    to    definition 182 

impartiality     214 

judicial  character   158 

publicity  2li 

necessity,  in  England — 

in  general 39,  92 

request  essential  to  necessity 39 

but  not  sufficient  cause 92 

by  whom  made 58 

in  Pennsylvania — 

in  general   190 

request  essential  to  necessity. .  .182,  208 

but  not  sufficient  cause 182 

by  whom  made 208 

approval  of  the  court  unneces- 
sary     166,  224 

coroner  judge  of 159,  189 

decision,  how  reached.  .163,  IQO 

limitations  in  mining  cases. .  228 

place  of  inquests 93.  208 

preliminary  view   163,  183,  190 

scope  of  inquest : 
in  England — 

in  general   39 

arson  65 

cases  of  death  54,  58,  91,  92 

cases  other  than  death  55,  63 

housebreaking    39 

prison,  persons  dying  in 42,  63 

prison  breach  54 

rape    41.  54 

royal  fish  55,  64,  67 


288  INDEX 

Pages 

treasure  trove 39,  41,  54,  64,    67 

wounding  39,  41,  54,    64 

wreck  of  the  sea 41,  54,  56,    67 

one  coroner  may  hold 57,  142 

in  Pennsylvania — 

in  general   188 

in  cases  of  death  by  accident.  161,  188,  203,  204 

in  cases  of  death  by  known  cause 197      JT 

in  cases  of  death  by  unknown  cause. .  .198,  199 

in  cases  of  death  by  felony 161,  188 

suspicion  of   188 

possibility  of   188 

in  cases    of    death    by   the    hand   of 

another    .• 161,  188 

in  cases  of  death  by  negligence 205 

in  cases  of  death  in  prison 188 

in  cases  of  death,  sudden  190,  196 

in  cases  of  death  by  suicide.  .161,  188,  201,  202 

in  cases  of  death,  unnatural 190 

in  cases  of  death  by  violence 188,  191,  196 

violence  defined 191,  192  193 

in  cases  of  death  by  visitation  of  God.i6i,  188 

inquest  at  costs  of  party  desiring  it 206 

monsters  and  unborn  infants 209 

second  inquests  57,  96,  97,  123 

time  and  circumstances  of  holding  inquest 92,    93 

view,  necessity  for 62,  89,  101,  177,  209 

verdict  and  inquisition — 

coroner's  roll  123 

inquisition,  in  England — 

amendments  to  126,  128 

certified    124 

evidence,  effect  of  when  included ..  1 10,  124 

method  of  forcing  return 124 

quashing,  causes  for  128 

result  of   128 

remedy  for  improper 129 

requisites — 

in  general   125 

culprit  126 

date   125 

jurisdiction    126 

names  of  jurors 126 

names  of  witnesses 127 

official   title    83,  125 

parties  bound  over  to  appear 127 

place    125 

precision 125 

qualification  of  jurors 127 

sureties  for  parties  bound 127 


INDEX  289 

Pages 

swearing  of  jury 127 

technical  terms    127 

return  forced  how 124 

returned  where   124 

sealed    I24 

signed    I23 

variances    128 

in  Pennsylvania — 

amendments    224 

approval  of  court  unnecessary 160,  224 

denial  of  fees  not  invalidating 239 

effect  of  evidence  when  included 223 

practice  concerning   223 

method  of  forcing  return 160,  224 

»  requisites — 

effect  of  evidence  223 

form    222 

length  of  time  each  day 243 

name  of  culprit 223 

names  of  jurors 223 

nature  of  death  223 

swearing  of  jury 223 

return  forced  how 160,  224 

return  where  made 221 

return  in  mining  cases 227 

return  under  Act  of  1866 222 

return  under  Act  of  1897 222 

sealed    221 

signed  221 

written    221 

justice  of  the  peace,  inquisitions  of,  see  Justice  of 

the  peace  acting  as  coroner. 
melius  inquirendum — 

when  awarded  128,  129,  130,  131 

obsolete  in  Pennsylvania 160,  166,  223 

traversability  of   137 

verdict,  accepted  by  coroner,  must  be 103,  178 

attaint,  impossible  103 

collateral  impeachment  of  225 

coroner  must  accept 103,  178 

decreasing  importance  of   181 

effect  of,  now  nugatory 225 

evidence,  not  admissible  in 225 

how  arrived  at   102,  220 

view  of  the  body — 

coroner  and  jury  must  make  together no,  214,  217 

necessity  for 62,  89,  209 

what  to  be  observed  at 213 

when  held  208 

witnesses,  allowed  to  see  the  body — after  view  had 218 


290  INDEX 

Pages 
attachment  of  for    appearance  in    court    in 

England 40,  123 

attendance  may  be  compelled 160,  219 

bound  to  appear  when  summoned 61,  98,  160,  219 

coroner  cannot  refuse  to  call — exception 218 

cross-examination   of    219 

examination  of   241 

expert  witnesses  not  entitled  to  fees 241 

fees  not  allowed 241 

jury,  should  not  be  sworn  on 101 

summoned  by  the  coroner  personally 157 

sworn    218 

Inquests  by  others  than  the  coroner 62 

Inquisition,  see  Inquest,  verdict  and  inquisition. 

Jeofails,  inquistion  of  coroner  not  within  statute  of 128 

Jurisdiction,  see  Inquests,  jurisdiction  and  authority. 

Powers  and  duties  in  general. 
Jury,  see  Inquest,  jury. 

Jury,  trial  by  relation  of  the  office  of  coroner  to 5,  104,  105 

Justices  of  the  peace  acting  as  coroner: 
see  Deputies  and  Assistants. 

additional  powers  conferred  on  coroner  not  given 169,  170 

compensation    239 

inquiry  by,  where  coroner  cannot  act 25,  166,  170 

where  coroner  does  not  act 25,  166,  170 

without  view  rare  in  Pennsylvania 160 

jurisdiction  in  England 25 

jurisdiction  to  hold  inquest  super  visum  corporis 166 

jurisdiction  under  the  Act  of  1841 167,  168,  169 

powers  may  be  obsolete 175 

preliminary  examination  by   186 

returns  must  show  jurisdiction  on  face. 169 

not  conclusive  of  necessity 169 

rules  governing  169 

Kemmerly,  James,  first  coroner  of  Chester  County 146 

King  Alfred    -. 8 

King  Edward  the  Confessor   14 

King   Henry    I    13 

King  John    16 

King  William  the  Conqueror  13 

Lackawanna  County,  see  Luzerne. 

coroner's  duties  in 195 

returns,  where  made  221 

Lancaster  County,  deputy  coroners  appointed  under  Act  of  1852...   171 

return,  where  made  221 

surgeon's  fees  in,  law  as  to  reasonableness  of...  242 
Liabilities  for  negligence  or  misconduct: 

in  general   48,  49,  87,  165 

escape    143 

false   return    143 


INDEX  291 

Pages 

investigation  of  76  to  81,  165 

misfeasance  in  office    143 

remedies  in  case  of   I24 

Supreme  Court  may  investigate 165 

Liabilities  on  official  bond  : 

in   general    • ^ 

copies  of  record  of  bond  evidence  in  suits  on 152 

discharge  of  lien  of   recognizance 154 

execution  prima  facie  evidence  of  approval  of  sureties 

in  suits  on  bond  152 

suits  on  bond,  how  regulated 152,  153 

sureties,  real  estate,  bound  by  recognizance 152 

London,  charter  of   12 

London,  coroner  of   31 

Luzerne  County,  coroner's  duties  in  195 

jurisdiction  under  Act  of  1866 192 

Act  of  1866  commented  on 195,  106 

juror's  fees  in  243 

Lycoming  County,  coroner's  fees  in 236 

Magna  charta 13,  16,  18 

Mandeville,   Geoffrey   de 1 1 

Mercer  County,  deputy  coroners  appointed  under  Act  of  1871 172 

juror's  fees  in  243 

surgeon's  fees  in,  law  as  to  reasonableness  of  ....  242 
Meluis  inquirendum : 

in   general    97 

awarded  when  128,  129,  130,  131 

obsolete  in  Pennsylvania  160,  166,  223 

traversability   of    137 

Mines,  accidents  in : 

coroner's  duties  in  regard  to  226,  227 

inquests,   held,   when 226,  227 

inquisitions,  requisites  of 228 

jurors,  selection  of   , 227 

mine  inspector's  duties   226,  227 

returns,  requisites  of    228 

Misconduct,  see  Liabilities  for  negligence  and  misconduct. 

Criminal  responsibility. 
Morgues,  see  Powers  and  duties  in  general. 

Municipal  charters  of  King  John 16 

Muscham,  Hugh  de  52 

Nature  of  the  office : 

see  Powers  and  duties  in  general. 

age  of  the  practice  of  investigating  sudden  deaths 4 

age  of  the  office  of  coroner 7,  8,  9 

foreign  countries,  similar  offices  in   3,  4 

Hindu  laws  as  to  4 

investigation  of  sudden  death,  necessity  for 3 

investigation  of  sudden  death,  universality  of 3 

legislation,   general,   as  to 5 


INDEX 

Pages 
nature  of  the  office  in  England — 

admiralty  coroner  27 

authority  derived  from  election 34 

burden  of  the  office 49 

centralized  government,  office  an  adjunct  of 15,     16 

definition     20     21 

different  kinds  of  coroners — 

virtute  officio    21 

virtute  curtate  sive  commissionis 21,  22,    31 

virtute  electionis  21,    32 

admiralty  coroner  22 

verger  coroner  22 

esteem  of  the  office 49 

franchises,  coroners,  of  23 

justices  of  King's  Bench  as  coroners 21 

King's  peace,  relation  of  office  to 15,     16 

number  of  coroners  in  each  county 32,    57 

object  of  the  office 15 

profit  of  the  King  a  feature 15,     16 

obstruction  of  coroner  misdemeanor 83 

verge  coroner  22 

nature  of  the  office  in  Pennsylvania — 

in  general   160,  188 

alteration  in  the  office  upon  transportation  to  Penn- 
sylvania     145 

changes  suggested  249 

definition    157 

different  kinds  of  coroner 148 

inquest  a  judicial  inquiry 158 

judicial  office  158,  160 

number  of  coroners  in  each  county 146 

obstruction  of  coroner  misdemeanor 161 

origin,  age  7,  8,      9 

Eyre  system,  concomitant  in  15 

King's  profit   15 

Norman  institution   9 

unknown     7 

Negligence,  see  Liabilities  for  negligence  or  misconduct. 
Inquest,  nature  and  necessity  in  general. 

Norwich,  charter  of n 

Northampton  County,  coroner's  fees  in 236 

deputy   coroners    appointed   under   the   Act 

of  1861  171 

surgeon's  fees  in,  law  as  to  reasonbleness  of  242 
Northumberland  County,  surgeon's  fees  in,  law  as  to  reasonable- 
ness  of    242 

Obstruction  of  coroner  misdemeanor 83 

Office,  see  Nature  of  the  office. 

Creation  and  abolition  of  the  office. 
Official  bond,  see  Liabilities  on  official  bond. 


INDEX  293 

Pages 
Origin  of  the  office,  see  Nature  of  the  office. 

Creation  and  abolition  of  the  office. 
Outlawry,  see  Powers  and  duties  in  general. 

Owen,  Griffith,  first  coroner  of  Philadelphia  County 146 

Passelieve,    Ralph    1 1 

Perry  County,  return,  where  made 221 

Philadelphia  County,  coroner's  duties  161,  164,  196 

deputy    coroners    appointed    under    the    Act 

of  1867   172 

first  coroner  of   146 

inquests,  when  held  161,  164,  192 

jail  physician,  duties  of   161 

jury,  how  selected  176 

recognizance,  means  of    escaping,    liability 

on 84,  154 

Physicians,  compensation  of,  see  Inquest,  autopsy. 

Pleas  of  the  crown,  coroner  to  record 54 

Post  mortem,  see  Inquest,  autopsy. 
Powers  and  duties  in  general,  see  Inquest: 
ancient  powers — 

appeals 18,  41,  54,    68 

limitations  upon  powers  concerning 18,    68 

convention  of  the  hundred  and  torn 56 

outlawry 18,  55,  69,  70,  71,  72,  73,  136 

court  of  the  coroner — 
in  England — 

in  general   69,  70,    84 

proceedings,  judicial    83 

in  Pennsylvania — 

in   general    158,  19° 

proceedings,  judicial   158 

duties,  in  England — 

in  general   39 

act  when  notified  so  to  do 57 

ministerial,  in  general   139 

sheriff,  substitute  for 139,  140 

when    139,  MI 

all  coroners  act  together 140,  142 

elisors,  when  appointed 14° 

coroner     not     to     intromit     after 

elisors  appointed  142 

process  might  be  served  on  Sunday.  144 

record  all  fines  and  amercements 82 

rolls,  coroner's  roll — content  of 40 

counter  roll  of  sheriff 82 

in  Pennsylvania — 

in  general   *57 

act  when  notified   1&S 

courts  attendance  upon  156 

definition  by  Act  of  Assembly,  lacking 157 


294  INDEX 

Pages 

elections,   duties  at    157 

mining  accidents,  see  Mining  accidents. 

ministerial,  substitute  for  prothonotary 158,  233 

substitute  of   sheriff 158,231 

when     231 

morgues,  in  general 158,  229 

chief  executive  officer  of 229 

management  of   229,  230 

registration   of   deaths 158,  164 

powers,  in  England — 

in  general    39 

abjurations     55,    73 

appeals   55 

obsolete 75 

approvers,  appeals  by   55 

confessions  in  sactuary  55,  73,    74 

deodands     55,  121 

Englishery    55,  122 

forfeitures     55 

inquests  of   death    54,    57 

inquests  other  than  death 55 

pleas  of  the  crown,  record  of  54 

sanctuary,  confessions  in  55,  73,    74 

statutes  of  4  Edward  I  and  3  Henry  VII... 38,    39 

presumption  that  coroner  does  his  duty 48 

authority   derived   from   election 34,    46 

commission  to  take  inquest  without  view 57 

enlargement    of    powers 56 

exercisable  by  one  coroner 57,  142 

extent  of  powers 54 

inquest  without  view 57,   65,    66 

number  of  coroners  necessary  to  act  in  given 

cases     57,  142 

committing    83,  85,    86 

contempt,  punishment  of    83,    85 

exclusion    from   inquest 83 

oaths,  administration  of    83 

posse  commitatus,  to  call 142 

sheriff  or  bailiffs,  to  call  upon 84,    92 

suspect,  to  bring,  before  inquest. 120 

in  Pennsylvania — 

in    general    151,  157 

appeals    156 

deodands    156 

forfeitures     156 

inquests  of  death   160 

inquests  other  than  death 156 

prison    breach    156 

treasure  trove    156 


INDEX  295 

Pages 

wreck  of  the  sea   156 

authority  lacking  until  bond,  etc.,  recorded 151 

statutes,  general,  regulation  by 157,  186 

Act  of  1907,  discussed 187 

statutes  of  Edward  I  and 

3  Henry  VII 158,  161,  186,  202,  203,  205,  255 

committing    157,  220 

contempt,  punishment  of   161 

exclusion   from   inquest 211 

oaths,    administration    160 

posse  commitatus   233 

sheriff  or  constable,  to  call  upon 157 

suspect,  to  bring,  before  inquest 213 

privileges,  exemption   from  arrest 88 

exemption  from  jury  service   88 

exemption  from  office  88 

Qualification,  see  Eligibility  and  qualifications. 
Return,  see  Inquest,  verdict  and  inquisition. 
Salaries,  see  Compensation  and  fees. 
Sanctuary,  see  Powers  and  duties  in  general. 

Schuylkill  County,  coroner's  fees  in   236 

deputy  coroner  appointed  under  the  Acts  of  1863 

and  1871    172 

surgeon's  fees  in,  law  as  to  reasonableness  of . . .  242 

Sheriff,  relation  of  the  office  to  that  of 6,  15,    82 

not  to  entromit  after  coroner  has  acted 14,  232 

process  to,  issued  erroneously  cured  by  jeofails 233 

Stuttville,    William    d' 9,     10 

Suicide,  see  Inquest  nature  and  necessity  in  general. 

burial    of    123 

Surgeons,  compensation  of,  see  Inquest,  autopsy. 
Term  of  office,  vacancies  and  holding  over : 

term,  in  England   46,     50 

term,  in  Pennsylvania    147,  149 

vacancies,  how  filled   154 

occur  when    154,  155 

Treasure  trove : 

in  England  39,  41,  54,  64,    67 

in   Pennsylvania    156 

Vacancies,  see  Term  of  office,  vacancies  and  holding  over. 

Venango  County,  juror's  fee  in 243 

Verdict,  see  Inquest,  verdict  and  inquisition. 
Effect  of  inquistion. 

Verge,    defined    23 

coroner   of    22 

coroner  of,  jurisdiction  of   25,    26 

coroner  of,  returns,  where  made 125 

Washington  County,  juror's  fees  in  243 

surgeon's  fees  in,  law  as  to  reasonableness  of.  242 


296  INDEX 

Pages 

Westmoreland  County,  coroner's  duties  in   192 

William  the  Conqueror,  laws  of   13 

Witnesses,  see  Inquests,  witnesses. 
Wreck  of  the  sea : 

in  England   41,  54,  55,    57 

in   Pennsylvania    156 


-75* 


